Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Thursday 28 February.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 27 February at Seven o' clock.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 26 February.

Mr. Speaker: As Bills 3 to 14 on the Order Paper have blocking motions, with the leave of the House, I shall put them together.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 28 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his objectives to be achieved in any reform of the CAP.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): Any reform of the common agricultural policy should make European Community agriculture more market-oriented, reduce budget costs, lead to closer integration between agricultural and environmental policies, and apply fairly throughout the Community.

Mr. Burns: On behalf of farmers in Chelmsford, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his forthright rejection of proposals that meet none of those criteria and that place British farmers at an unfair disadvantage compared with European farmers? Will my right hon. Friend contrast his robust defence of British farming interests with the craven attitude of the Liberal party, the leader of which is reported to have said——

Mr. Speaker: No, these are questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend fully elaborate on his robust defence of British farming interests and tell the House that he will never accuse British farmers of "whingeing" and that he will not allow British farmers to be placed at a disadvantage compared with small European farmers?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. This is a battle which must be fought on behalf of the farming community throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that what farmers are saying about their present position and the damage that the current proposals would do is absolutely true. I deplore suggestions that they are in any way "whingeing" and I am sorry that the word was used by the leader of the Liberal party.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Minister assure the House that the internal logic of the CAP, which has driven us for so long to the destruction of wetlands, moorland, woodlands and birdlife, has been arrested and, preferably, put into reverse?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's comments are perhaps a little sweeping. The internal power of the CAP ensured that the European Community ceased to fear hunger and could feed its people. That is a great achievement. I support the hon. Gentleman's view that, today, in a world of surplus, our environmental policies should be integrated with our agricultural policies. That is one of the basic principles that I enunciated earlier.

Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend may know that this is the 150th anniversary of the election to the House of that greatest of free traders, the anti-corn law campaigner, Richard Cobden. Does he agree that a wonderful way to


celebrate that event would be to rid ourselves of the 20th century equivalent of the corn laws, the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Gummer: If my hon. Friend were to read Richard Cobden's views more closely, he would discover that he does not adhere to many of them. It would not help farmers, environmentalists or citizens of Britain to destroy our countryside by not ensuring a reasonable livelihood for those who look after it—the farmers.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I do not wish to make a political point——

Mr. Cryer: Fancy doing that in here—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Howells: In view of the crisis currently facing British agriculturists, what advice would the Minister give to young farmers who want to enter the industry today?

Mr. Gummer: My first advice is that they should support the Government's recent proposals, which would make it easier for land to be available to let. Secondly, I hope that if they enter farming, they will set out to produce goods that the public want and to narrow the gap between imports and exports of food products which was graphically exposed yesterday by Food From Britain. Thirdly, there will be a difficult time ahead because we are in a world of surplus for those who can afford it, but in such a world there will always be a place for the specialist, efficient producer who produces what the public want and at a price that they can afford.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reforms of the CAP he will propose to improve the prospects of closing the trade gap in food and drink products.

Mr. Gummer: We have to take every opportunity to ensure that the reform of the CAP enables British farmers to improve their marketing and their share of the whole European market.

Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend has already referred to this morning's announcement that the trade deficit in food and drink products has widened. Will he take an early opportunity to discuss with the chairman of Food From Britain how that trend could be reversed? In those discussions, will he consider how the French have apparently managed to do the opposite during the past 12 years, by creating a surplus in food and drink profits which is equivalent to the deficit that we are experiencing?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for referring to Food From Britain. Since taking over that body, its dynamic chairman, Paul Judge, has concentrated on precisely that issue, which is an important aspect of British farming and British food production. We should have a major campaign to ensure that people realise that in choosing food, there is a remarkable range of extremely good products from this country. I do not want anyone to buy British merely because it is British but because it is the best. In whole areas of food production, British is best. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if you wish to buy an egg produced under the safest conditions and regulations and with the best in animal welfare, you should buy a British egg and no one else's.

Mr. Graham: If the Minister wishes to close the trade gap in food, will he consider a letter that I received from a farmer in my area who is very concerned about the closure of the knackeries? That makes it difficult for farmers to get as much money as they used to get before the advent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Mr. Gummer: The inability to sell fallen stock but to have to pay for it to be taken away has more to do with the fact that the price of tallow, which is the major end product, has been driven down to a third of its original price. The hon. Gentleman does the industry no good by suggesting that the reason for the problems in the knacker and the rendering industries is other than the world problem of a low price for their products.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the consumers' ability to buy British depends on the freest possible market? In that context, does he agree that the reason why the British consumer so often has to buy French cheese or German yoghurt lies in the monopolistic and outdated practices of the milk marketing board? Does he support the milk marketing board's upcoming proposals, which should create a freer market—and not just in whole milk products?

Mr. Gummer: I look forward to the milk marketing board's proposals. I agree that it is very difficult to see how British producers can get the best price for their milk or how British manufacturers can get the best part of the market for their manufactured products unless the system, which was designed for wholly different circumstances, is changed. If not, British producers will be supplying the end of the market that produces the least money while the top end of the market will be provided by products coming from the rest of Europe.

Dr. David Clark: On the trade gap, did the Minister see the claim by Safeway supermarkets earlier this week that it had to import 70 items of food which could be grown in Britain because British suppliers could not guarantee quality, consistency or price? If that is true, it is a massive indictment of our agricultural support system. Will the Minister set up an inquiry into that allegation, which has also been made to me from other quarters? It is the reason why we have a massive £5·1 billion deficit in food trade.

Mr. Gummer: That question would have come better from the hon. Gentleman had he not advised people to eat New Zealand apples and said that he did not eat British sausages. It would be much easer to take lessons from the hon. Gentleman if he had not spent the past 18 months undermining the British food and farming industries. On that basis, I shall decide what action to take without the benefit of any spurious advice from the hon. Gentleman.

Set-aside Scheme

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of new applicants for the set-aside scheme have applied for the non-agricultural use and woodland options.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): About 27 per cent. of third-year set-aside applicants in England applied for the non-agricultural use option and about 5 per cent. applied for the woodland option.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend gives rather disappointing figures. Will he try to galvanise the famers of Esher—[Laughter.] I should have thought that that would be taken seriously. Will my hon. Friend try to galvanise the many farmers of Esher into adopting the woodland option so that we can add woodlands to the green belt and have all the attractions of woodlands, with their waving trees, dells, glades and cover for pheasants?

Mr Curry: I accept that the woodland option under set-aside has not proved as popular as we had hoped. That is why we are examining the relationship between the farm woodlands scheme and all the other woodland schemes to determine whether we can put together a better package. We intend to draw up a consultation paper and I shall take particular care to forward it to the farmers of Esher. If we wish to carry out experimental work, no doubt they will volunteer for it

Mr. Morley: Perhaps one reason why farmers have not been keen on set-aside is that it appears that farmers are being paid for doing nothing. But it is an opportunity to use public money in a desirable way, because it encourages the creation of woodland. If land is to be set aside, it should be used in ways that encourage wildlife and promote conservation. I know that there are Premium payments for doing that.
Will the Minister give an assurance that farmers will be encouraged to participate in the woodland schemes, particularly for urban and community forestry? The schemes enable farmers to take their land out of production and put it into forestry for the benefit of themselves and the community in general.

Mr. Curry: In the early stages of the set-aside scheme, when whole farms could be taken out of production, people may have been able to level the accusation that it was payment for doing nothing. In fact, that was not the case, because farmers had to maintain their land in trim. But that accusation was precisely the reason why we reduced the incentives for whole-farm set-aside. We have steadily increased the environmental element of set-aside, because that is the best justification for the scheme. We intend to take the Countryside Commission's East Anglia premium scheme nationwide and we are looking hard at its environmental benefits. If set-aside becomes one of the centrepieces of the eventual Community reform programme, we shall wish to ensure that it is closely associated with environmental objectives.

Mr. Marland: When studying the woodland options, will my hon. Friend remember that we need to find ways of improving the environment and habitat of wildlife and of putting more money into the farmer's pocket, rather than that of the store owner? Will he consider the possibility of encouraging farmers to care for existing woodland, a great deal of which, up and down the country, is being seriously neglected?

Mr. Curry: I thought that my hon. Friend was on the point of painting some especially enchanting woodland options, but I shall certainly bear in mind the points that he made when we examine the scheme.

Organophosphorous Sheep Dips

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of organophosphorous sheep dips.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Organophosphorous sheep dips are approved under the Medicines Act 1968 for the effective control of sheep scab. Products are currently being reviewed and any that do not meet up-to-date safety standards will have their licences withdrawn.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern about the use of organophosphorous sheep dips? As alternatives exist, what is the Minister doing to promote their use?

Mr. Maclean: Of course, I am aware of the concern about the use of sheep dips. Two organophosphorous sheep dips and one alternative are currently available. We should be very happy if anyone were to come to us for approval with a new sheep dip that did not contain those materials, provided that the new dip met all other standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Such dips, which contain potent materials, are necessary to deal with the nasty problem of sheep scab. That is why there are strict warnings on the labels and a scheme to encourage anyone who is adversely affected to report it to our independent advisory committee.

Mr. Speller: Although I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the vital need for strong sheep dips, is he aware of the fear that when the beast is driven through the dip, it becomes agitated and its pores open? It thus ingests a certain amount of the dip within the fabric of the body. Has the Minister anything to say about the safety of those dips in such circumstances?

Mr. Maclean: When the veterinary products committee reviews sheep dips, it will keep in mind the problem of whether any residue is left on the animal or ingested into its system. The official leaflet that we publish on the control of sheep scab gives specific safety instructions to farmers to ensure that the animals have been rested before they go through the sheep dip so that they are not sweaty, their pores are not open and they are in prime condition.

Agriculture Reform

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet EC Agriculture Ministers to discuss EC agricultural reform.

Mr. Gummer: At the Agriculture Council on 4 and 5 March.

Mr. Griffiths: When the Minister goes to Brussels, will he bear in mind the urgent need for change, given that the GATT round has restarted? Will he consider the information, which I imagine was passed to him by the director general of the Nature Conservancy Council, that 80 per cent. of damage to sites of special scientific interest in Britain is caused by bad farming? Will he make it an urgent priority in the reform of the common agricultural policy to introduce green premia along the lines advocated by the Labour party?

Mr. Gummer: The Labour party's proposals have not gained much support outside the Labour party. They would certainly not be acceptable in the European Community and do not meet most of our requirements. However, at the National Farmers Union I spoke about the environmental changes that we should make and which I consider a necessary part of CAP reform. I hope that we shall reform the CAP to make it better. Some of the suggestions that have been made would make it decidedly worse. We need to ensure that farmers can do their two jobs—produce the food that we need and look after the land that we care about.

Mr. Marlow: Given that within the European Community Britain is one of the least self-sufficient countries in terms of food and agricultural produce, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to give a simple undertaking to the House today that he will not agree to anything coming out of Brussels which will reduce still further our self-sufficiency in food and agricultural produce?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is both a farmer and someone who takes a great deal of interest in farming, but it is an odd view of our membership of the European Community—or of the world community—that we should be self-sufficient in everything. The German Government took such an autarkic view in the past. It would not commend itself to democrats or anyone with a liberal view of trade.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In the ongoing debate on common agricultural policy reform it has been suggested that only large farms are economic and efficient. Will the Minister take this opportunity to refute that suggestion? Does he accept that many smaller farms in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are equally efficient? Is not there something wrong with the CAP when 80 per cent. of funds available are directed to only 20 per cent. of farmers?

Mr. Gummer: I do not know of many farms in the United Kingdom that could not be classified as family farms. The idea that a family farm must have less than about 30 acres is nonsense. Some family farms hold and look after four or five families and that is how British agriculture has generally developed. The real distinction to make is between farms of a realistic size that are able to support a family and farms that we know perfectly well cannot produce an acceptable income as standards rise in countries such as Portugal, which traditionally have had tiny farms. We want to help such farms to reach a more sensible base so that they can support the people who run them.
Farming in this country is efficient and very much able to compete. I am determined that it should be able to continue to do so. As 80 per cent. of production is achieved by 20 per cent. of farms covering nearly 70 per cent. of the land area, it is not surprising that they receive 80 per cent. of the support.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I was most disappointed with the reply from my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about self-sufficiency. Would not it be in the interests of this country and every other to be as self-sufficient as possible in the production of food? Will my right hon. Friend undertake a study to find out the rate of self-sufficiency in

Britain and Europe and compare it with American self-sufficiency? It seems that the GATT round is all about the United States hogging world trade.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend produces wheat, a product which we could go on producing in such amounts only if we were able to export a large proportion of it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want his wheat production to be cut because other countries wanted to be self-sufficient in its production. The economic base that he proposes is one that I should not like to be applied throughout the industry. Would he suggest the same for coal or computers? That would destroy any progress and prosperity in the world.

Dr. David Clark: May I state the Labour party's agreement with the Minister's objectives for CAP reform as outlined in his answer to Question I? However, we believe that the reform must be cash-limited. It is absolutely indefensible that the British taxpayer and consumer currently pays £13·5 million a day to support the common agricultural policy. Why is the Minister so dismissive of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), along Labour party lines, for the payment of a green premium? I know that the Minister likes the idea—why will not he discuss it with us and acknowledge that the green premium not only gives us environmentally sensitive farming, but provides us with a sensible agricultural support system and is more economical to the consumer and the farmer?

Mr. Gummer: I happen to think that the policy as outlined is not as good as a range of other policies that we have adumbrated and that is why I do not wish to implement it. I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about supporting our policy. I hope that that means that he will tell his Front-Bench colleagues that it is no longer Labour party policy to support the MacSharry plans.

Mr. Moate: How can my right hon. Friend, of all people, be so non-communautaire as to attack the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for not eating British sausages? Will my right hon. Friend follow the logic of his remarks and urge the reform of the CAP so that production policies are at last returned to a national basis and the role of the European Commission is reduced to ensuring fair trade between member states? Does he agree that we are now paying £25,000 direct agricultural support for every full-time farmer and that we could get much better results on a national basis?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that the CAP is a basis of our membership of the European Community. I am wholly in favour of that membership and I support the CAP. I intend to get it reformed so that it does more good for Britain, for British farmers and for the farmers of the rest of Europe. I do not find it uncommunautaire to say that as British sausages are the best in Europe, they should be eaten by British people; I am sorry that the Labour party spokesman for agriculture says that he will not eat them.

Animal Diseases

Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the British Veterinary Association to discuss the control of animal diseases in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclean: My ministerial colleagues and I meet the BVA periodically, most recently on 13 December 1990, as do my officials, to discuss a range of subjects including animal disease control.

Mr. Dunnachie: Has the Minister noted what Mr. John Logie wrote in Farmers Weekly of 25 January? Mr. Logie is a leading member of the Scottish knackery industry and is greatly concerned about the number of knackeries that are closing in Britain. In particular, there is great concern about the number of farmers leaving animal carcases to rot in the countryside. Mr. Logie wrote:
It is really beyond belief that the Government is ignoring what could become a major health hazard. It would be terrible if the public were poisoned before something is done.
Does the Minister agree that this is a major concern for human and animal health?

Mr. Maclean: Let us get one thing straight from the start. There would be no knacker industry in Britain if the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), had not pulled off a marvellous coup in Brussels just before Christmas, when he protected the whole knacker industry for at least the next five years. My Department is taking strenuous action to ensure that there are alternative systems available. The knacker industry can continue collecting dead animals. We are giving help and advice to farmers on other disposal methods. We are spending £800 million per year in general support for the livestock industry. I do not think it reasonable to ask the taxpayer to spend any more money on specific subsidies to farmers. We shall take strenuous action against anyone dumping animals by the roadside.

Mr. Harris: While accepting a lot of what my hon. Friend said about the knacker industry, may I ask him to accept that there is great concern among veterinary surgeons, particularly in Cornwall, about the disposal of fallen animals and animals that have disease? Is my hon. Friend further aware of the concern about the future of the Polwheal veterinary investigation service station which covers the whole of Cornwall? May we have an assurance that that station is not under threat, as rumours suggest?

Mr. Maclean: I cannot deal with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question because the matter is under review. We are aware of the concern in some sections of the agriculture and knacker industries. We have had extensive discussions with knackermen and renderers. There are still outlets for the materials involved if farmers wish to use them. Alternative disposal systems are available and, as I said earlier, only the action taken by the Government has prevented the EC from closing down the whole knacker industry.

Intervention Stores

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current amounts of foodstuffs held in EC and non-EC intervention stores in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: A table showing intervention and private storage stocks in the EC and United Kingdom is deposited monthly in the House of Commons Library. Latest figures were tabled on 19 February.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister admit that, despite all the set-aside schemes and attempts to run down the industry, surpluses in intervention stocks are increasing again? Does he agree that at a time when every family is paying £16 a week to prop up the common agricultural policy, and when we have the cock-eyed MacSharry proposals before us that will make matters worse, it would make more sense if those stocks of food found their way into empty bellies in the third world instead of being wasted as they are now?

Mr. Curry: First, the House should note that this is one of the rare occasions on which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) agrees with his Front Bench, in his condemnation of the MacSharry proposals. His suggestion that European surpluses should be sent to the third world would do positive damage to the third world by simply wiping out local production. To suggest getting rid of our surpluses by using the third world as a dustbin does no good to European agriculture and would be a major disservice to the third world.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: When will my hon. Friend discover what ought to be self-evident—that only by a quota policy can we ensure that agricultural support goes to the producers of food, not to the storers of food or the exporters of subsidised food?

Mr. Curry: What I have discovered is that we must have an agricultural policy that is closer to the marketplace and the consumer. I am afraid that the formula that my hon. Friend suggests would have precisely the opposite effect.

Mr. Ron Davies: We all agree that a system of agricultural support that does not benefit producers or consumers but rewards people who store food, people who destroy food and people who dump food cannot be justified and has to be reformed. We know which reforms the Government oppose. Why are they so coy about giving details of the reforms that they would like to see?

Mr. Curry: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the National Farmers Union. It spells out clearly what we have said for years—that farming must get closer to the marketplace and that institutional prices have to come down. We have to make sure that farming is compatible with the environment and that its job is to supply what people want to eat. There is nothing very original about that. It is common sense, and common sense is the hallmark of the Government's policies.

GATT

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet his EC counterparts to discuss the Community's attitude towards agricultural measures in the context of the GATT round talks.

Mr. Gummer: The Agriculture Council regularly reviews progress in the GATT negotiations, and I expect it to do so on 4 and 5 March.

Mr. Knapman: My right hon. Friend is a doughty fighter in Europe for British industry. He has heard today the many concerns about the cost, waste, fraud and protectionism associated with the present CAP. Does he agree that there should be an early resumption of the GATT round of talks? Perhaps it is time for delegates to be locked in a room until they reach agreement.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the announcement today that resumption looks likely is very encouraging. I wholly agree that we shall get a solution to the GATT round only if those participating stop addressing themselves to the columns of newspapers and sit down in a conference room at a table from which they do not get up until they have found a solution.

Mr. Cryer: What influence can the Minister bring to bear on the EEC to make sure that there is a resolution of the conflict in the GATT round? As he well knows, the GATT round of talks is crucial not only to agriculture but to other industries, notably the textile industry which in Bradford in my constituency faces difficulties because of high interest rates. The uncertainty of the GATT round indicates a difficult and dark future. Can the Minister tell the House what influence, if any, he can and will bring to bear in the European Community?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I think that he will agree that it is the British attitude which has very much won the support of the European Community. It is we who got the Community to put its proposals to the GATT round. We have kept the Community at that negotiating table and we have supported the Commission in fighting to negotiate on those terms. We have also stopped those in the Community who wish to resile from those negotiations from succeeding. Britain can say that the successes so far are based upon British initiative and support.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that the CAP is lurching from crisis to crisis? Is he also aware that the future will be very bleak indeed when the EEC is extended by Poland and Hungary coming in, which will lead to even greater pressures on the CAP? Is he really telling the House that he has not looked at the possibility of withdrawing completely from it and repatriating our agricultural payments?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about GATT, not CAP.

Mr. Maclean: Our way to deal with the CAP is through the GATT round, because the GATT round will enable us to liberalise trade much more widely. The common agricultural policy is part of the basis of the European Community. We need to reform it and to change it, but not to suggest that there can be a Europe which does not have a common agricultural policy, which would be to run totally contrary to the facts of the matter.

Food Poisoning

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association to discuss methods of reducing food poisoning incidents in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend met consumer organisations, including the Consumers Association, yesterday as part of a series of regular meetings to discuss policy issues, including food safety matters.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there is general concern about the increase in food poisoning, as illustrated by a sixfold increase in the Trent region in the past seven years? Does he agree that local authority environmental health officers have an important part to play in combating food poisoning, but that their task is being made far more difficult by an insufficiency of financial resources?

Mr. Maclean: I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking a rather simplistic approach to combating food poisoning. We have a whole host of measures to deal with food poisoning, not least the Food Safety Act which came into effect on 1 January this year. The Act gives widely and greatly increased powers to environmental health officers and others to implement the law without a huge increase in resources being necessary, but we have also provided an extra £30 million for local authorities to help enforce the Food Safety Act.

Food and Drink

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to reduce the food and drink sector trade deficit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: The Government are firmly committed to supporting Food from Britain, which has set itself the task of reducing the trade deficit in the food and drink sector by promoting our products at home and abroad.

Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the conclusion to the current GATT rounds, no competitiveness will be lost in connection with United Kingdom food and drinks exports, particularly the great confectionery industry based in cities such as York?

Mr. Curry: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we are particularly attentive to the needs of the processing industry and that when it comes to the cutting of restitutions we should get full restitution for the raw material components of processed foods. I know that the confectionery industry runs up a balance of payments surplus of about £100 million a year and that is particularly important to it.

Common Agricultural Policy

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's position in the discussions now under way in the European Community with regard to fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Gummer: The Government have been the most consistent supporter of reform of the CAP and I am determined to fight for a reform that meets the criteria that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) earlier today.

Mr. Martlew: We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Minister today about buying British, but, as British dairy farmers are not allowed to produce more than 86 per cent.


of the milk consumed in this country, will the Minister state categorically that he will not accept any further cut in the United Kingdom milk quota? Would not it be monstrous for the efficient farmers of north-west England and elsewhere to have to pay the price for inefficiency and overproduction in the rest of Europe?

Mr. Gummer: Since Britain has become a member of the European Economic Community we have increased the amount of self-sufficiency in the dairy industry. One of the sadnesses of the present situation is that although we are only 86 per cent. self-sufficient, we are still manufacturing some of the lower-cost products, with lower returns to producers, because of our milk marketing system. So we need to reform that as a matter of urgency. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am not prepared to have a greater reduction in quotas in this country than occurs in other member countries of the European Community. The MacSharry plan proposes exactly that. I believe in fair shares for all.

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the effect on British agriculture of the European Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP.

Mr. Gummer: British agriculture would be severely disadvantaged by what we know of the Commission's ideas. They would imply that support for cereals, compulsory set-aside, quota cuts in milk and headage limits for sheep would all bear vastly more heavily on the United Kingdom than on any country in the European Community.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that the MacSharry proposals would not only discriminate against Britain but would involve a major increases in CAP costs in all European countries?

Mr. Gummer: At a time of great budget crisis, MacSharry has produced proposals which would cost more than the 25 per cent. increase in the budget which appears to be scheduled for this year if we continue as we are. They are, therefore, unacceptable in budgetary terms and they are completely unacceptable because they disadvantage the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Viggers: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Viggers: Bearing in mind the horrors that have been perpetrated in Kuwait, where thousands have been murdered and tortured, and bearing in mind also the awful nature of the weapons available to Saddam Hussein, does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no doubt that the implementation of all the United Nations resolutions is both a just and a necessary cause? Does he also agree that since August Saddam Hussein has had every opportunity to withdraw from Kuwait, and that if a major

land offensive should now be necessary our forces will carry with them the gratitude and good will of the entire nation?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The only message that we wish to hear today is that Iraq is prepared to accept and implement all the Security Council resolutions in full and immediately. That is a message which can be given to us at any time. As I told the House on Tuesday, only when such a message is received and has begun to be implemented can there be an end to the conflict.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that within the past 48 hours every one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council has made it crystal clear to Saddam Hussein yet again that if immediate and unconditional removal of all Iraqi forces were to take place the fighting could end? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what the whole world wants—including, had they but the freedom to say it, the ordinary people of Iraq? Knowing that, is not it obvious that of all the many cruelties committed by Saddam Hussein, the greatest would be his failure to take the opportunity, which has always existed and still exists, to avert a major land battle and the great suffering that it would bring?

The Prime Minister: It has certainly been made clear by the allies that we stand by the Security Council resolutions in full. As the House may know, I understand that, within the past few minutes, Saddam Hussein has begun broadcasting to Iraq. There is no indication yet of what he has said or what he will say, but I am bound to say that he preceded his broadcast with yet another Scud attack.

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is an inventive nation and that we maintain a strong science base? Will he, therefore, join me and other hon. Members from both sides of the House in congratulating the Royal Society of Chemistry on celebrating its 150th anniversary this year? Will he also pay tribute to the chemical industry, which contributes a balance of payments surplus of more than £2,000 million per annum to Britain?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. Only last Friday I had the pleasure of opening an innovative ICI factory in Runcorn in the north-west which will manufacture an alternative to CFCs—the first such factory in,the world. The chemical industry has an impressive record both in investment in research and development and in the exploitation of that investment by our scientists. That is the basis of industry's necessary recovery.

Mr.Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that no one, but no one, can relish the prospect of having to fight a land war in the Gulf, that even at the 11th hour every realistic avenue for peace ought to be pursued, but that we cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by culs-de-sac designed to delay the freedom of Kuwait? Will he confirm that the aim of the allies is not a temporary peace, leading


to conflict later, but a durable, United Nations-based peace, a basic ingredient of which must be recognition of the legitimacy of Kuwait?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, particularly about durability and security. There is no need for particular peace proposals. The peace proposals that we wish to hear are those that we have set out and agreed with our allies and others in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. That has been and remains the position. If Iraq is prepared to accept and implement those, the conditions exist for an end to the conflict. Without that, they do not exist.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to congratulate the management and work force of the Rover Group on their contribution to the British export drive? Does he agree that the figures recently announced are self-evident proof that it was a very good deal between British Aerospace and Rover for the west midlands, the taxpayer and the country?

The Prime Minister: There has been a remarkable renaissance in the motor car industry generally. That, of course, includes Rover.

Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that West and South Yorkshire police and fire authorities are about to set their budgets this weekend for the forthcoming year? Is he also aware that the options before them are to do so in accordance with the Home Secretary's guidelines, and thus maintain their present effective forces, or to set the budget according to the standard spending assessments of the Department of the Environment, which would result in the loss of hundreds of police and firemen's jobs and consequently of services? Considering the increase in the crime rate and the ever-greater demands on the fire service, what advice does the right hon. Gentleman have for them?

The Prime Minister: Like all authorities, this one must select its own priorities.

Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware, not least from his knowledge of his own constituency, of the wonderful work done by many thousands of people working for village hall committees. Is he aware that, notwithstanding the marvellous efforts of our right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) two years ago to protect village hall committees from some of the worst trepidations of EEC VAT directives, VAT remains a serious problem for them? Will he have a word with the Chancellor and encourage him to try to find a fiscal device to make life easier for those voluntary fund-raisers?

The Prime Minister: It is not readily apparent what fiscal device my hon. Friend has in mind, but if he cares to suggest something I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will examine it.

Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Hoey: Does the Prime Minister recall when he was a young man being a councillor in Ferndale ward in my constituency? Does he realise that this month there is 25 per cent. unemployment in Ferndale ward? Will he have time in the next couple of weeks to come and see the people there, many of whom have been out of work for more than two years, and tell them what more they can do to get jobs under the Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: While visiting Ferndale ward, which I had the privilege of representing for a period after 1968, I might also discuss with the people why, so many years later, nothing has been done by Lambeth council to improve their environment, their housing, their street cleaning or any of the other matters that concern them.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the answers to any review of the community charge are staring us in the face from Westminster city hall? Would my right hon. Friend note that that council—a single-tier authority—has been able to reduce its community charge as a result of good housekeeping? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Dame Shirley Porter is made a member of the Government review team immediately?

The Prime Minister: We should be happy to have Dame Shirley's advice on that or on many other matters and I am happy to congratulate Westminster city council on the community charge that it has levied. It is certainly an example to other authorities and I hope that they will follow that example.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the

Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister agree that concern about loss of face, or part face, by any leader leading a nation involved in the Gulf war pales into insignificance when compared with the possible loss of life if a land war is embarked upon?

The Prime Minister: Nobody wishes artificially to bring about a land war if it is avoidable. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind who began this conflict, what the aims were and what is necessary both to end it and to ensure that there is a secure and durable peace, which means that conflict will not recommence at a later date. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.

Mr. Cash: When my right hon. Friend saw Chancellor Kohl the other day, did he discuss the German proposals for political union, which have now been submitted to the intergovernmental conference? Did he agree that those proposals were completely unworkable and that if they were put into effect they would mean, to all intents and purposes, the end of the Westminster Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I discussed a range of matters with Chancellor Kohl. I did not discuss the letter which the French and the Germans put forward, although we discussed in general terms some of the matters related to both the economic and monetary union IGC and the political union IGC. I set out for Chancellor Kohl our concerns about those matters and the policies that we have set before the House.

Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michael: On a day when the Government's own gross domestic product figures have illustrated the depth of the recession and the frightening drop in production created by his policies as Chancellor and now as Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the stupidity of adding 6,000 experts on training the unemployed to the queues of unemployed? Opposition Members have lived with the misery caused by the Government for millions of people during the recession in the early 1980s. How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to prevent a repetition of that misery for millions in the 1990s?

The Prime Minister: We have an excellent record on training, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As for economic circumstances in this country and elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman will know that three of the G7 countries are now officially in recession and two more have had a downturn in output. The hon. Gentleman imputes too much authority to me if he thinks that I am responsible for all that.

Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably one of the biggest mistakes that the western alliance has made was to try to treat Saddam Hussein as though he were an honourable man when in fact his words are worthless? When my right hon. Friend next telephones President Bush, he may be able to tell him of some of the evidence that we have heard in the House about the human rights being destroyed in Kuwait and the genocide taking place there which must mean more and more deaths for the Kuwaitis every day.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend expresses a view which is held by the vast majority of hon. Members in the House. There is no doubt that since 2 August the Iraqis

have broken any number of international obligations and there must be some considerable concern about whether we can trust what is said to us by them.

Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister recall the statement that he made on 29 November following his election to his present position? He said then that he wanted to see a country at ease with itself. Does he believe that 2 million unemployed, the continuing decimation of our health service, the imposition of the hated poll tax and the current deepening recession represent a climate in which the people of this country can be at ease with themselves? Does he not now recognise that the only way to remove those problems is by the removal of the present Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is a class warrior who believes in conflict; I am not. That is the difference between us.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 21 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and the country which five local authorities have the highest community charge, which five have the worst education results and which five have the largest rent arrears?

The Prime Minister: I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend will a detailed list of those authorities. I think that I can tell him now, however, that he will find no Conservative authorities among them, and an overwhelming predominance of Labour authorities, almost certainly including Brent, Camden and Lambeth.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.

TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Road Traffic Bill.

Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Fourth ACP-EEC Convention of Lome) Order.

WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Until seven o'clock,

motions on social security benefit uprating and other orders and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Motion on the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations.

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.

THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

FRIDAY I MARCH—Private Members' Bills

MONDAY 4 MARCH—Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuation) Order.

Remaining stages of the Census Confidentiality Bill [Lords] and the Oversea Superannuation Bill.

Motion to take note of EC documents relating to assistance to the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. Details will be given in the Official Report.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10·30 am on Wednesday 27 February to consider European Community Document No. 7057/90 relating to agricultural and agro-industrial research 1990–94; and that European Standing Committee B will also meet on Wednesday 27 February at 10·30 am to consider European Community Document No. 10149/90 relating to promotion of energy efficiency in the community.

[Wednesday 27 February:

Social Security benefit uprating and other orders and regulations
1. Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order
2. Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations
3. Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order
4. Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations
5. Social Security (Contributions) (Re-Rating) Order
6. Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order
7. State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations
8. Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employer's Relief) Regulations.

European Standing Committee A:

Wednesday 27 February

Relevant European Community Document

7057/90 Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Research

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 11-xxxii ( 1989–90)

European Standing Committee B:

Wednesday 27 February

Relevant European Community Document

10149/90 Energy Efficiency

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-vi (1990–91)

Floor of the House:

Monday 4 March

Relevant European Community Documents


10880/90
Aid for Soviet Union


4120/91

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-vii ( 1990–91).]

Dr. Cunningham: If, regrettably, Saddam Hussein continues to ignore the United Nations resolutions, there is a serious deterioration in the situation in the Gulf and a land war begins, may we have an immediate statement in the House from Her Majesty's Government? The Leader of the House has been very good at ensuring that the House is kept informed of developments and changes in the Gulf: let me on behalf of the Opposition, express our appreciation of that. Nevertheless, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, if a widespread land war begins, a statement should be made immediately.
Last week, the Leader of the House said again that he was trying to find time for a debate on the Cullen report on the Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea. We now have the details of next week's business, and yet again, regrettably, no time has been found for a debate on that important report. May I urge the Leader of the House to find time for this matter in the business for the week after next, because hon. Members on both sides of the House are very anxious, as are many of their constituents, to have the recommendations of the Cullen report debated?
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the report of the inquiry by Lord Justice Woolf into the Strangeways riots will be published next Monday? If so, or if it is to be some other day next week, may we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the inquiry report? It is somewhat ironic, if not unsatisfactory, that we shall be finalising our deliberations on the Criminal Justice Bill before the House has had the opportunity to discuss and learn the lessons of the Woolf inquiry. It would have been far better if we could have had a statement on the report before the House had concluded its consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill.
It has been the tradition of the House, whichever party was in power, to have a debate on Government public expenditure plans. I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that the Government intend to have such a debate and that they are not trying to wriggle out of that commitment. We are now in danger of not debating the Government's public expenditure plans before the Chancellor introduces his Budget on 19 March. I believe that even supporters of the Government would regard that as wholly unsatisfactory. I well recognise the Government's embarrassment, especially since we know from the public expenditure paper from the Department of Employment, for example, that £350 million is to be cut


from the training budget at a time when we are heading deeper and deeper into recession. There are many other important public expenditure issues involved, and the Opposition have the right to demand a debate on them.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for what he said about the way in which business in the House on the Gulf had been handled. As he knows, we have kept regularly in touch through the usual channels. He will know that the House is to debate the situation in the Gulf later today, and we had a statement earlier this week, both of which are indications of my determination to carry out my promise to the House to review regularly the need for debates and statements. We must be watchful of developments in the Gulf, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and hope to carry on as I have been doing in ensuring that a statement is made whenever one is appropriate.
The hon. Member has raised on a number of occasions the subject of the Cullen report. I said last week that I hope to arrange a debate on this topic as soon as possible. I am aware of the desire of other hon. Members to debate it. The hon. Member asked me for three debates last week. I have been able to fulfil one of his requests in next week's business, because we are to have a debate on Welsh affairs. I cannot guarantee to fulfil in a single week all my promises to him, but I certainly hope to arrange a debate on the Cullen report. Unfortunately, it cannot be next week.
It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on the Woolf report as soon as it is published, which we expect to be very early next week. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about trying to arrange it in advance of the conclusion of our debates on the Criminal Justice Bill. I will certainly see what I can do to arrange that sequence of events.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question whatever of our wriggling on the question of public expenditure. I am very proud of our public expenditure programme, and that includes this year's. The hon. Gentleman will know that we now have a new arrangement for the publication of public expenditure plans. They are not all now contained in one document. Particularly at the request of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, there is, for the first time, a series of individual departmental plans. We have had a stream of reports in the past few weeks.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no embarrassment about having a debate, but we have to take into account the new system and the new method. I certainly intend to arrange a debate on the public expenditure plans, although I doubt whether it will be before the Budget. I hope that we shall have the debate when the House has had an opportunity to absorb the wide range of White Papers.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but we are to have today an important debate on the Gulf war aims and the restoration of peace in the middle east—in the name of members of the Scottish National party—in which no fewer than 24 hon. Members wish to take part. I would therefore ask the House——

Mr. Tony Banks: They are not here; they have been caught out.

Mr. Speaker: It does not matter whether they are here or not. Many of those present wish to participate. Exceptionally, therefore, I propose to allow business questions to continue only until 4 o'clock. Then we must move on to the debate.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend listen carefully to the debate on the Gulf and ensure that there is plenty of opportunity for the Labour spokesman to explain the contradiction between the statements of those on the Opposition Front Bench—or what is left of it—and the actions of local Labour parties, such as that in Battersea, which have been subscribing to the "stop the war" campaign and repudiating the policies of those on their own Front Bench? If there is not time today, will my right hon. Friend allow another opportunity for that to happen?

Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that, because of other commitments, I cannot be present throughout the debate this afternoon. The whole House will be aware that some people in the Labour party oppose the policy of those on the Labour Front Bench. Some of them will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. Equally, the House knows that a large majority of the Labour party strongly support the Government's position.

Mr. Norman Hogg: As we are not doing much next week, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on early-day motion 400, standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends?

[That this House condemns without reservation the disreputable actions of the Scottish National Party on Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council in determining a budget and fixing a poll tax which slashes funding for housing, homeless persons, housing maintenance, environmental services, planning, building control, recreation and leisure, libraries, refuse collection, refuse disposal and parks etc., with serious consequences for the level of service to the public, jobs and conditions of council staff and impairs the council's ability to meet new statutory requirements required by Parliament in such Acts as the Environment Protection Act; demands that the SNP leadership clarify why and when it became their policy to act in support of Tory Scottish Office Ministers in making cuts to an extent beyond even the excessive demands of the Scottish Office; and asserts that SNP councillors who support such policies while refusing to pay the poll tax are wholly unprincipled but consistent with SNP's position in Scottish public life.]

The motion deals with the scurrilous behaviour of the Scottish National party councillors on Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council who have fixed a budget and increased the poll tax but refuse to pay it themselves. May we have a debate about the poll tax and the hypocritical behaviour of SNP representatives on Scottish local authorities? If we cannot, will the right hon. Gentleman at least add his name to the early-day motion?

Mr. MacGregor: I refute the hon. Gentleman's claim that we are not doing very much next week. The House is to complete its proceedings on two of the major Bills in the current legislative programme. We are also to debate a number of important social security orders. I rather suspect that hill farmers would not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the motion on the Hill Livestock


(Compensatory Allowances) Regulations is unimportant. Many Scots hill farmers will warmly welcome the fact that we are to deal with that next week. Moreover, given the area that the hon. Gentleman represents, I am surprised to hear that he regards a whole day's debate on Welsh affairs as irrelevant and not important. We are to discuss a lot of important matters next week.
The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to early-day motion 400. As a Minister, I am not entitled to sign early-day motions. I know that the Scottish National party has been anxious to portray itself as the party of community charge non-payment, but as soon as SNP members gain power in the council chamber, no one is keener to set and collect the charge than they are. That was the case with Angus district council, which the SNP controls, and now it is the case with Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council. The SNP is the party of shallow slogans in opposition and the party of sheer hypocrisy when it gets into power.

Mr. Robert Hayward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Boundary Commission for England announced its intention to start its work today. Would it be possible, without interfering with the independence of the Boundary Commisson, to have a brief debate on the preparations for the report so that we can take the opportunity to express our views on the way in which the system will operate?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that it will be possible to arrange a debate. I will, however, consider my hon. Friend's request, although I am sure that he will be able to find other opportunities to make his views known.

Mr. James Wallace: Is the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, concerned about the fact that today a Select Committee reported that attempts had been made to conceal from the House certain important aspects of the sale of the Rover Group to British Aerospace? Notwithstanding any embarrassment that it might cause the Government to have a debate on this matter, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the integrity of the House of Commons demands that there be a debate on this very shabby and dishonourable means of attempting to conceal information from it?

Mr. MacGregor: The right way to proceed is to do what we always do—wait for the detailed reply of the Department of Trade and Industry after it has considered the report.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange as soon as possible another debate on manufacturing industry to give the Opposition spokesman a chance to make amends for his performance early this week? On that occasion the hon. Gentleman, for much of his speech, refused to give way to hon. Members on the Government side. He also failed to produce any proper, costed Opposition proposals, and he failed totally to present any proper policies.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate immediately, although I recognise that my hon. Friend has made some very good points. Following the Budget statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. on 19 March, there will be an opportunity to debate industrial and economic matters at some length. I am sure that my hon. Friend will again make his points then.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that next week the families of some Gulf personnel will come to the House of Commons to meet members of the Gulf families support group? Those people are very anxious about the lack of co-ordination between the groups that have sprung up and about the absence of Government funds to enable them to function. They are worried about men who may return from the Gulf disabled and needing jobs, houses and rehabilitation. May we have a statement or a debate next week on those subjects?

Mr. MacGregor: Support groups and the Gulf Trust have the backing of the whole House. Many of my hon. Friends are very active in their constituencies in support of such groups. I am sure that the group to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred will get the message next week that they have the warm support of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will know that a considerable range of benefits—in particular, war pensions—are available for those who may most unfortunately suffer injury in the Gulf. I believe that these arrangements are widely known, but in any case we shall make sure that they are widely publicised at the appropriate time.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House, when he is thinking about that matter, take into account the fact that war pensioners in Strathclyde now have to pay the poll tax? A constituent of mine whose husband lost half his brain in the last war and receives full poll tax rebate has her war pension included for poll tax purposes. This is a sick tax, and it should be abolished. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to that effect?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, in relation to the community charge, there is a wide range of reduction schemes and reliefs for those on lower incomes. Indeed, they were extended considerably very recently.

Mr. Michael Latham: My right hon. Friend, in declining any statement this week on the terrorist atrocities in London, reflected the mood of the whole House. Will he bear in mind the fact that it is important that from time to time the House be given an opportunity to debate the situation in Northern Ireland? Will he see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is given an opportunity to open a major debate on this subject within the next few weeks?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely that it is important that the House should have an opportunity to debate these matters. On 4 March, consideration of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuation) Order will provide hon. Members with such an opportunity. In addition, I expect to be able to announce before very long the date on which we shall take the Report and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that a proposal for a draft Northern Ireland fisheries order was published in March 1988? It met with considerable criticism and many amendments and changes have been made to it. Although we have been told that its reappearance is imminent, it has not as yet re-emerged from the Northern Ireland Office. Does not


that episode show clearly the absolute need to deal with Northern Ireland legislation by Bills so that, instead of changes being made by officials after representations without public debate, there could be public debate on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee where all the issues in the order could be explored? Will the Government consider the order again and reproduce it as a Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise to reproduce it as a Bill. I am not aware of the latest developments with regard to the order and I will have to look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. I will also draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and discuss it with him.

Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the past 47 years it has been the accepted wisdom of successive Governments that the German authorities were responsible for the massacre in Katyn, in Poland? However, the Soviet Union has accepted full responsibility for it. Given that substantial change, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the matter?

Mr. MacGregor: We have rather a lot of business ahead of us in the next few weeks and I have received many requests for debates. However, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend and, without making any commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), I will see what the position is.

Mr. John Hughes: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 506.
[That this House, having recognised that the honourable Members' constituents who may be wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of troops serving in the Gulf, will be gravely concerned to learn that, whilst their loved ones were poised, preparing for the moment when they would be engaged in the bloodiest battles and facing the most horrendous of modern killing weaponry, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and a team of senior British businessmen, hundreds of miles from the combat area, in luxury hotels, were dispassionately discussing with Kuwaiti Royalty the final scenario of the conclusion of the war, the British and American carve up of a Kuwait restoration programme and the financial benefits to be accrued from the obscenity of war; finds it difficult to understand the insensitivity of senior ministers or equate their mercenary activities to their superficial expression of support for the troops; and puts on record its condemnation of a Government which allows its obsession with market force philosophy to overrule every other issue, even the Gulf War.]
The motion refers to the costs and rewards of the Gulf war. With regard to the rewards, the Government have shown their commitment and have produced a 32-page document which lists 168 companies. The restoration of Kuwait is broken down into six sections. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and teams of senior business men have visited Kuwait and have discussed the matter—[ Interruption.] This is true.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have the hon. Gentleman's drift. Will he please ask for a debate?

Mr. Hughes: Can the Leader of the House tell me whether the people who sat down with the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Kuwaiti royalty to discuss the restoration programme——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for a debate and not deal with wider issues.

Mr. Hughes: I am asking for one.
Were the business people who sat down with the Prime Minister also members of the team of 48 people who rushed to China after the Tiananmen square massacre? With regard to——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say, with kindness, to the hon. Gentleman that he is taking up his colleagues' time. It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman to have an Adjournment debate during business questions.

Mr. Hughes: May I refer——

Mr. Speaker: No. The Leader of the House has the hon. Gentleman's drift.

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will try to call the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacGregor: It would be right for me to address my remarks to the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We deplore the views expressed in the motion. The Government of Kuwait are planning urgently the reconstruction of their country, which is likely to have been ruined by the barbaric invasion of Iraq. They have warmly welcomed the prospect of United Kingdom participation in the rebuilding work, particularly as British firms have been suppliers for many years. Therefore, in view of our attitude to that early-day motion, I certainly do not intend to find time for a debate on it.

Mr. Derek Conway: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time next week for a debate on a subject about which I have received more messages and letters than about badgers, the community charge or any other subject that I can recall over the past eight years, namely, the coverage of the Gulf war by the BBC and ITN? Many of my constituents, over a range of political views, have been incensed by the fact that the British media have allowed themselves so treacherously to be used as Iraqi propagandists. The House should be able to express a view about that.

Mr. MacGregor: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has received more letters on any subject than on the Badgers Bill—[ Laughter.] To respond to his serious point, views have already been expressed in the House on that matter. It is clearly the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities to behave responsibly on all those issues. It is a matter that can be and has been raised in our debates on the Gulf.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Is the Leader of the House aware that, with the support of the Rutherglen Liberals, the Greater Glasgow health board sold public land in Rutherglen to TaKare plc for the provision of units for the care of the elderly? The board


justified that sale by stating that the site would be used for national health service patients, but it has now been revealed that TaKare plc intends to use part of the site exclusively for the care of the elderly in the private sector. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a member of the Treasury Bench to make a statement to the House on the legality of the sale?

Mr. MacGregor: I know nothing about that matter, and I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman a debate.

Mr. Paul Marland: Will my right hon. Friend consider setting aside a little time in the not-too-distant future to discuss further the profligacy of some county councils, especially Gloucestershire county council, which, under the control of the Liberal Democrats, has increased its spending at twice the rate of inflation and exceeded its own budgets by millions of pounds? Now, thank goodness, it is faced with the possibility of charge capping. This year, despite previous promises——

Mr. Speaker: Ask for a debate, please.

Mr. Marland: Well, may we have a debate to discuss this matter? Despite previous promises, and despite an extra grant from the Department of Transport for road improvements, under the Liberals, Gloucestershire county council will still not meet its commitment for the construction of the Lydney bypass, an important road in the Forest of Dean. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate to discuss the matter—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Enough; let us have a debate on that, too.

Mr. MacGregor: In the majority of cases, the overspending to which my hon. Friend referred has been undertaken by the Opposition parties, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out at Question Time earlier. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find other opportunities of raising in the House the issue of the bypass, as well as his general question, on which he has my sympathy.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time next week—I accept that he has said that there will be time after the Budget—to discuss the deep recession that the country is now in? If he will give Government time for that, perhaps he will arrange to bring to the Dispatch Box Ministers who take the situation seriously. My constituency and the Calder valley have lost 3,000 manufacturing jobs in the past 12 months, but instead of answering a serious point about industrial policy, yesterday a junior Minister resorted to personal insults. That did not insult me, but it does insult every person who has lost his or her job in Halifax and who is now facing dire consequences and struggling to pay the poll tax and mortgages. Will the right hon. Gentleman please make some time available to discuss the recession because things are desperate and thousands of jobs are being lost every day?

Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely the charge that there is a deep recession. There is no doubt that all Ministers take seriously the importance of pursuing the right economic policies to ensure that we achieve the kind of growth in the 1990s that we achieved throughout the 1980s.
On the hon. Lady's point about a debate, she will know that we have debated such matters quite a lot recently and, as I have said, some days will be devoted to all economic issues following the Budget statement.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us would welcome a debate on the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on Rover and British Aerospace because it would enable us not only to point out that that deal saved nearly 200,000 jobs, which the Opposition are so concerned about, and millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, but to draw attention to the fact that the wild allegations made by the Opposition Front Bench on this issue were wholly rejected by the European Commission?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I cannot pre-judge it, I imagine that those are some of the points that will be dealt with in the Government's reply. It is right to wait for the official reply and we shall then consider whether it is appropriate to have a debate. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend has made his point effectively.

Mr. Tony Banks: When gliding around London in his chauffeured limousine, is the Leader of the House aware of the deep anger of Londoners, especially London commuters, about the state of London transport? The Secretary of State made a statement yesterday, but that is no substitute for a full debate. The Government took responsibility for the administration of London transport from the Greater London council, which is why it is in such a mess. May we have a debate? The matter is urgent.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman said, a statement was made yesterday. We have a full programme of legislation and many hon. Members are pressing me for debates on many issues. I cannot promise a debate in the near future on the state of London transport.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend will have noted early-day motion 500, entitled "Merchant Navy," which has attracted 244 signatures in just two days.
[That this House welcomes the recent report of the Joint Working Party on British shipping published in September 1990; notes the vital importance of Britain's merchant fleet for the economy, employment and our strategic defences; recognises the links with regard to economic activity and maritime skills, between the merchant fleet and the marine related industries; notes that British shipping and those marine related industries together contribute some f5 billion a year to the country's invisibles; and calls on her Majesty's Government to take immediate and positive action to first ensure that the British fleet is strengthened by appropriate stimulation of investment in modern tonnage and second encourage the recruitment, training and employment of British seafarers.]
As maritime activity is essential to the economic well-being and security of this country, and as there is widespread support in the House for the regeneration of our maritime fleet, may we have a debate on the subject at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. MacGregor: I have indeed noted the early-day motion, and I agree about the importance of the maritime fleet and the industry as a whole. My hon. Friend knows that the Government are actively following up the


recommendations of the joint working party report to which the early-day motion refers. The recommendations deal with, among other things, recruitment and training. Assistance with the cost of training Merchant Navy officer cadets is provided for under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The early-day motion refers to financial assistance. The General Council of British Shipping and others have made submissions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the context of the forthcoming Budget. I cannot anticipate any decisions on that issue.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have not been able to call all hon. Members. I shall keep the list carefully next week to ensure that those who were not called have precedence at business questions next week.

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]

The Gulf

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
I make a special plea to those on the Front Benches and those on the Back Benches to limit their speeches. As I have already said, 24 hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and I should like to call as many of them as possible. If Back-Bench Members were to limit their speeches to, say, five minutes each and those on the Front Bench to 10 minutes each, it would enable most hon. Members who wish to participate to be called.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to reconsider your decision? We are on the point of a ground war and the only way in which hon. Members who oppose the war starting could express their opinion would be to vote for the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and others. I ask you to give us the chance to do that by taking that amendment, too.

Mr. Speaker: Sadly, it is not possible for me to call more than one amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that. I have made my selection.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that there have been occasions, albeit rare, when other amendments by smaller groups in the House have been accepted and that this should be one of those occasions? Would you also bear it in mind, Mr. Speaker, that since the motion was tabled last night, another 20 people have signified their willingness to add their names to the 20 who tabled the amendment? Would you, therefore, reconsider what you have just said?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot reconsider. The hon. Gentleman knows that I can select only one amendment, but, of course, those who oppose the motion will have the option to express their opposition in the Division Lobby later.

Mr. Jim Sillars: I beg to move,
That this House, having given continuous overwhelming support to British forces in the Gulf and therefore mindful of its responsibility to them, and to the status and integrity of the United Nations, calls on the Government to ensure that war aims, and efforts to create peace and security in the area, are restricted to the terms set out in the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions; and declares that no diplomatic opportunity should be lost to bring the present conflict to an end in terms compatible with United Nations Security Council Resolution 660.
In a sense, I am in an unenviable position. I am like a man trying to step on a single spot in a moving river because I understand that information is still coming out of Baghdad. The latest that I have heard is that Saddam Hussein has said—this is a very rough translation and quotation:
We will continue the struggle confident that we will eventually win victory …They want us to surrender but they will be disappointed.
When Tariq Aziz delivers the Iraqi response to the Soviet offer there will be no other. Hussein says:
The mother of all battles will be let loose.


I rise to speak in an extremely pessimistic mood. Earlier this week, I talked to people with background knowledge of the situation. Their view of Saddam Hussein was that his calculation is that if he could not personally survive, he would rather bring the whole temple down on his head, irrespective of the human cost involved. This afternoon's debate is highly relevant because whether there is a final, final chance of peace, whether before the land battle starts or when the land battle is engaged, it is extremely important that we understand the war aims for which the troops are engaged. It is legitimate for us this afternoon to probe and investigate the Government's war aims.
Before doing so, I place it clearly on the record that nothing that I say in probing those war aims or in disagreeing with the Government is a diminution of the support of the Scottish National party for British forces implementing United Nations policy in the Gulf. They have our unequivocal support. I also ask the House to recognise that we are arguing, as we have done since 2 August 1990, that Saddam Hussein bears the primary responsibility for the conflict in which we are engaged. It has always been his key decision whether there has been peace or war.
We in the west, who live in a democracy, often find it difficult to understand that someone like Saddam Hussein could have, from the beginning, determined on war as part of his political policy. However, that has always been part of his political policy.
There are two reasons why the Scottish National party chose this issue for debate on our one half Supply day. First, it reflects our long-standing concern about the Gulf, a great strategic region of the world. I advance as proof the letter that I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 24 July 1990, eight full days before the invasion of Kuwait. I wrote:
Dear Douglas,
Iraq and Kuwait.
I am extremely concerned at the dispute that Iraq has whipped up with Kuwait, and the latest news of Iraqi troop movements at the Kuwait border lends a new dimension of anxiety, particularly in view of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and the long standing Iraqi claim to what is Kuwait territory.
I appreciate that you and other EC governments may be awaiting the outcome of the inter-Arab efforts to settle the dispute, but given the difficulties that other Arab states face in dealing with Iraq, now arguably the most powerful and certainly the most free-moving of all in the Arab league, I believe that other pressures must be brought to bear.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, and because of Britain's historic ties with the region, a special responsibility would seem to rest with us. May I urge you, therefore, to place the issue of Iraq's conduct before the full Security Council with a view to that body providing Kuwait, a small nation with considerable elements of democracy built into its system (unlike Iraq), receiving international assurances about its security in the light of aggession from Iraq.
I am of course aware that you and your department will not have been idle on the issue, and that considering taking the issue to the Security Council is a matter of fine judgement. However, and again I emphasise Hussein's record, when faced with Iraq seeming to mobilise for conflict, I believe it is right to call upon the UN to act decisively to preserve the peace and protect the rights of small nations.
That was written eight days before the invasion.
On 25 July, April Glaspie, the United States ambassador to Iraq, told Saddam Hussein to his face:
The United States has no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait … I have been instructed by Secretary of State Baker to emphasise and underscore this message to you … I am under instructions from President Bush to seek better relations with Iraq.

No doubt in due course there will be some explanation of that inexplicable American position on 25 July when someone such as myself, a Back-Bencher with limited resources, could see on 24 July what was likely to happen. I put that on the record because it allows us properly to claim a record of reading the position accurately and a commitment to the integrity of the state of Kuwait.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United States made it perfectly clear that it in no way condoned the possibility of the Iraqis taking over Kuwait?

Mr. Sillars: The important words in Miss Glaspie's statement are "conflict" and "border". The United States probably gave the green light, or at least it was seen that way in Baghdad, to venture into the border dispute. However, I have no doubt that that will be examined in due course.
The second reason is much more important. We are reaching the final phase of the political and military engagement between the coalition and Iraq. It is clear that as we approach it—perhaps we are already in it—the war aims and their consequences, which will carve out the political contours of the middle east for a generation or more, are of prime importance. The war aims have lain at the heart of the past seven days of activity between Moscow, Baghdad, Tehran, Washington, Paris and London.
The Government should give a calm, rational and honest explanation about what has transpired since last Friday afternoon. The House should undertake a calm, rational and honest examination of the Government's conduct in the past seven days. I draw the attention of the House to the motion before it. It refers to our responsibility for the people whom we have overwhelmingly supported—the forces in the Gulf—and our responsibility to the United Nations.
It is one thing for people like us to send young people in uniform to risk their lives for United Nations policy, to uphold the authority of the only organisation upon which we can build a new world order and to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's torture squads. It is different to ask them to risk their lives for an American war aims agenda, which goes beyond the United Nations mandate in respect of the use of force. We have a deep obligation because the troops—the Army, Navy and Air Force—are instruments of political policy. But they are not robots. They are flesh and blood. They have families, wives and children and they also have intelligence and their own opinion.
In a democracy the armed forces will always be the instrument of politics. But we have certain obligations to them. We have an obligation not to allow them to die for policy that goes astray in the hands of politicians.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If Iraq withdraws from Kuwait with the majority of its armour, artillery and aircraft intact, would the hon. Gentleman trust Saddam not to use them in future?

Mr. Sillars: I shall come to that during my speech.
As I said, the United Nations is the only organisation upon which we can build a new world order. It is paramount that we are not party to using its resolutions as paper flags of convenience, to be discarded when they place limits on any policy that might emerge from Washington and London.
There is a clear implication that there is cause for concern about the war aims and their definition. I intend to develop an argument to show that the Government must respond to that anxiety. My submission is that the war aims are in danger of going beyond the United Nations mandate. I shall come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) in a few moments. If I am disabused of the notion that the war aims may go beyond the mandate no one will be happier than me. If Iraq tells the Soviet Union that it will immediately meet the terms of resolution 660 and withdraw unconditionally, given our original limited war aims the basis will exist for bringing the killing to a swift end and avoiding the horrors of a land battle.
However, I have been disturbed by the statements made and stance taken by the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom before and especially after last Friday's Baghdad communiqué. Let me first chart the movement of the war aims before last Friday. On 15 January, in an important exchange in the House between the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said:
I now address my remarks briefly to the question of aims, constraints and objectives. I hope that the Government will, in clearer terms than I have heard so far from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence or the Foreign Secretary, announce what the aims of any actions would be. It is important that if we go into this terrible action we do so clear about our objectives. It would be a catastrophe to allow a war which invented its own aims as it rolled along. We must now state what our aims will be."—[Official Report, 15 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 760.]
Winding up the debate, the Foreign Secretary said:
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asked a key question about our aims if there is a war, and they are clear. They are contained in the Security Council resolutions. They are to get Iraq out of Kuwait—all of Kuwait—to restore the legitimate Government of Kuwait and to uphold in that way the collective security and authority of the United Nations. Beyond that, there is a hidden agenda."—[Official Report, 15 January 1991, Vol. 183, c. 814.]
On 17 January, the Prime Minister made this statement to the House:
Our aims are clear and limited. They are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions: to get Iraq out of Kuwait—all of Kuwait; to restore the legitimate Government; to re-establish peace and security in the area; and to uphold the authority of the United Nations."—[Official Report, 17 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 979.]
So far, so clear. On the same day, the Prime Minister made a ministerial broadcast to the people, in which he said:
Our aims are clear. They have been set out, for all to see, by the United Nations Security Council. First, we must get Iraq out of Kuwait—right out of Kuwait. Second, we must restore Kuwait's legitimate government. And third, we must uphold the authority of the United Nations.
We and our allies want nothing more than that.
In an article in The Times on 18 January, the Foreign Secretary, maintaining a consistent line, said:
Our aims are laid out in the United Nations resolutions.
He went on to repeat that the aims were:
First, to get Iraq out of Kuwait, all of Kuwait. Second, to restore the legitimate government of Kuwait. Our aims do not go beyond this. We are not trying to dismember Iraq or to decide who should govern it. More generally, we are acting to uphold collective security and the authority of the UN Charter and UN Security Council.

The crucial words, "more generally", were the lead-in to the issue of peace and security. However, on 28 January, the Secretary of State for Defence was reported in the Financial Times as saying:
Mr. Tom King, Britain's Defence Secretary, yesterday made clear that dismantling President Saddam Hussein's war machine formed part of fulfilling UN resolution 678 … 'It has to be right, after all the effort and all the costs and all the pain that we have been involved in. We cannot leave this half finished with a continuing menace, continuing to threaten other states in the area.
The Financial Times commented:
While this position has long been tacitly understood both in London and Washington, Mr. King's remarks are the first public acknowledgement in the United Kingdom that disarming Iraq is an aim of the leaders of the coalition.
On 31 January—we now see them beginning to creep forward—an interview with the Prime Minister was reported in The Times.

Mr. Rupert Allason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order, given the shortage of time and your direction, for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) to read from newspapers?

Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly in order for the mover of the motion to do so, and it is a rare opportunity for the spokesman for the SNP to make his own speech in his own way.

Mr. Sillars: The Times wrote:
Asked if the allied war aims were changing to include more action in Iraq once Saddam's forces had withdrawn from Kuwait, Mr. Major did not rule this out. It was impossible to be precise in defining what was meant by action to secure and preserve peace and security in the region, he said, until the circumstances arose. 'We will judge the situation at the time against the Security Council resolutions.'
I go back to 29 November 1990, to the Security Council, at which the Foreign Secretary represented the United Kingdom when resolution 678 was introduced and voted on. We should remember that the Prime Minister was telling us on 31 January 1991 that it was difficult to be precise. This is what the Foreign Secretary said way back in November.
We see it as one of the main purposes of this resolution to blow away the uncertainties and set out for the Iraqis exactly how they stand and how we stand. There is no ambiguity about what the Council requires in this resolution and in previous resolutions. We require that Iraq comply fully with the terms of resolution 660 and all later resolutions and withdraw all its forces unconditionally to the positions on which they stood on 1 August.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that dismantling a war machine during the course of a war is helpful in securing peace and stability in the area? Does he further accept that dismantling that war machine in this war would be helpful in removing Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait?

Mr. Sillars: If we are talking about dismantling the Iraqi war machine in what is known as the Kuwaiti theatre of operations, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must be yes. But is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the 270,000 Iraqi troops on the border with Turkey should become legitimate targets for the coalition? I would say no—that would go well beyond the Security Council resolution—unless they began to move actively into the Kuwaiti theatre of operations. I acknowledge the fairness of the hon. Gentleman's question. Let us assume


that Saddam is expelled from, or leaves, Kuwait. I do not believe that the United Nations has given us a mandate to advance on those 270,000 troops on the Turkish border.
Having sought to show that there has been a creeping of the war aims, I now quote our ally Mr. Bush, the President of the United States. At a press conference President Bush was asked:
Now obviously it's a semi-hypothetical; he hasn't gotten out, of course. But could you tell us something about your conditions for agreeing to a cease-fire in the event that he did begin?
Mr. Bush replied:
Well, it would have to be a credible, visible, totally convincing withdrawal. There would be other things that I will not state here that I would want to see happen.

Mr. David Winnick: There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Sillars: I agree that there is nothing wrong with that. My point is that the elected representatives of people who have sent troops to the Gulf are entitled to know what those other things are. We are entitled to know whether those things advanced or retarded the chances for peace in the last seven days. We are also entitled to know whether they are conditions in conformity with or compatible with the resolutions of the United Nations, of which resolution 660 is the foundation and upon which resolution 678, the licence for force, is based.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Have not those troops whom we all support the right to expect us to allow them to get on with the job of dismantling this war machine in every particular? If it is not dismantled, the war machine may result in thousands of British casualties.

Mr. Sillars: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman follows the logic of what he says. The logical conclusion is that there comes a point at which political control is not applied to the military. I profoundly disagree with that.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sillars: I have been generous in giving way and I want to make some progress. I am trying to balance our right to deploy our arguments with the rights of other hon. Members to take part in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is one of those seeking to participate later.

Mr. Sillars: On Friday, Baghdad issued its communiqué and on first reading it seemed to be a list of impossible demands designed to procure a negative reply. The Foreign Secretary said that it might have had two purposes, one to split the coalition and the second simply to gain time for Saddam Hussein to regroup his military forces for a continuation of the conflict. Others who have a legitimate position in the international community, in Europe and elsewhere, took a different view. The Soviets thought that it might have been a signal of a willingness to comply. Tehran also thought that it might have been a signal and the Iranian Foreign Minister described it as a wish list rather than a list of demands. Since then everything has gone behind a veil of secrecy.
The time has arrived, especially in the light of Saddam Hussein's statement, for what has happened since last Friday to come into the open. How otherwise can we make a mature judgment about whether the next stage, the land

battle and the death toll, is justified? Perhaps I could put it more brutally. What am I, as a Member of Parliament, to say to a mother in my constituency who asks, "Did my young son really need to die in that land battle?" The only answer that I can give at the moment is, "I do not know." We are entitled to know.
Until now there have been no concrete statements. We have read in the newspapers about sources in Washington and elsewhere talking about extending the aims to take out the Saddam Hussein regime, virtually to disarm Iraq and to demand recognition by Iraq of the al-Sabah family as the legitimate Government of Kuwait. That would be a different principle from that applied by the United Kingdom to international recognition, because while for a long time we have not recognised governments, we have always recognised states. Therefore, we seek to impose on Iraq a position that we do not accept in international law. There is also the issue of reparations.
Today we were assisted by the Prime Minister at Question Time telling us that to end the war Saddam Hussein must obey all United Nations resolutions immediately. He used the word "immediately" and I shall examine his use of that word in a moment. When I made my notes, I assumed that only the public would be led to believe that the United Nations has further imperative demands on top of resolution 660 which must be met before the guns fall silent. Now, listening to Conservative Members, it appears that they have joined what I perceive to be the public position. The public has been led to believe that and so have they. If that is the position being put forward by the Government, it is not an honest summation of the 12 resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.
Eight of those resolutions—661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669 and 677—present no fundamental obstacles if Iraq says that it will withdraw under resolution 660.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Resolution 666 is about food and medical supplies to Iraq following problems which resulted from the imposition of sanctions and the onset of military action, so presumably that does not have to be complied with by Iraq, rather by the United Nations.

Mr. Sillars: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right; he reinforces my argument. Resolution 677 says that the United Nations Secretary-General should hold the register of the population of Kuwait. What does the Prime Minister mean by the immediate implementation of all the United Nations resolutions? Resolution 670 might be important. That refers to violations of international law and the fourth Geneva convention and says explicitly that Iraq is liable for violations against human rights. Is it Government policy that, even if Iraq withdraws under resolution 660, there can be no cessation of hostilities until Saddam Hussein and his regime are brought to a war crimes trial, with all the problems inherent in that? That is important because the Minister's reply to that question will either bring in or knock out one of the resolutions to which the Prime Minister referred.
Resolution 674 refers to the liability of the state of Iraq for the costs involved and the damage done to the property of individual Kuwaitis and others and the state of Kuwait. Nowhere does that resolution mention "reparations" and that proves the absurdity of the Prime Minister's use of the word "immediately". It is not Saddam Hussein who will


meet the cost. How will the Iraqi people make reparations immediately? There will have to be a mobilisation of international help for the Iraqi people. We are entitled to some explanation of the Government's attitude to resolution 674.
That leaves us with resolution 660, the foundation policy, and 678, the instrument of implementation. Resolution 660 says that Iraq should withdraw to the positions held on 1 August. It does not say that the Saddam regime should be removed or that there should be disarming or humiliation. That was a considered judgment, reinforced by resolution 678, despite the fact that Iraq had committed the greatest crime among states—the attempt to extinguish one. Is resolution 660 still the foundation of our policy, or, now that Iraq is on the ropes, is the hidden agenda to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime? I have no doubt that any declared intention to bring down Saddam Hussein would be extremely popular among the general public, but it would go well beyond the terms of the Security Council resolution. It is our duty not to be carried away by the fever or the opportunity presented by war, but to think carefully of the consequences of our action.
Perhaps I can put the question in a different form. What precisely does Saddam Hussein need to accept tonight, or when the conflict goes into its second phase, before we will call off the war, or how far into Iraq are we prepared to go? I recognise the temptation for the coalition forces to take Saddam Hussein's regime out by decisive military action. Like every other hon. Member, I detest that man and his regime. I was arguing against it when he was gassing the Kurds at a time when western and other Governments were supplying him with arms and credit.
I know that there is a concern to defeat Saddam Hussein. I am trying to be fair to the Government, and it is a fair point for them to make that up till now one of their anxieties has been that they could win a military victory but that Saddam Hussein could win a political victory because he does not need to win militarily to win politically. Two weeks ago that was possible. I doubt whether it is now.
We are talking about an Iraq with a broken-backed economy, with its social system in tatters, with its infrastructure shattered and with a military machine that is being pulverised daily. But apparently tonight Saddam Hussein is still shaking his fist. After last Friday's communiqué, in which he used the word "Kuwait", not the 19th province, and the word "withdraw", I believe that he was politically and fatally weakened and that his days are numbered.
Let me express my fear that if we are not sensitive to Arab feelings—that is, the feelings of the people and not of King Fand and the other rulers—we could win the war but go on to lose the peace. As much as anyone else, I want Saddam Hussein to get his just desserts——

Mr. Winnick: Let us get on with the war.

Mr. Sillars: Let me tell the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that it is crucial to the future that Saddam Hussein is brought to account by his own people. Saddam the martyr, martyred by the United States of America, would remain a potent force for evil and instability. If we want peace and security in relations

between the Arab world and the west, we must be careful that they are not poisoned by our conduct in the war and its immediate aftermath.
I beg the Government to make the Americans understand the delicacy and sensitivity of the Arab peoples in the wake of an Iraqi retreat or an Iraqi defeat. I do not want to see Saddam the martyr devour the peace from the grave the way he has done while alive.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'having overwhelmingly supported the despatch of British forces to the Gulf, welcomes the affirmation by the Government that the aims of British military action are to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.'.
You have asked us to be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I shall seek to be so.
I propose, in the course of my speech, to touch on four issues: the causes of the conflict; the objectives of the coalition; how the conflict can be ended; and what needs to be done when it is concluded.
The conflict began on 2 August last year when, after weeks of intimidation and despite negotiations arranged by fellow Arab countries, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. To the very eve of the invasion Saddam Hussein was promising fellow Arab leaders that he did not intend to use force. That was a lie.
The attack on Kuwait, a small sovereign state, militarily weak, no threat to him and Islamic in character, was wholly unprovoked. His pretence that he invaded Kuwait in order to free Palestine is a lie. He used force in order to promote his own policies in precisely the same way as he used force against Iran in 1980 and against the Kurds in 1988.
Iraqi forces have plundered Kuwait. Two thirds of the indigenous population has been displaced. The country has been looted. Many of its citizens have been murdered. As the Amnesty report makes plain, Iraqi forces have systematically employed brutality and torture as an instrument of policy. This is the nature of the regime and these are the causes of the conflict. It is not possible to conceive of a clearer act of aggression.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) talked about the Iraqi people removing Saddam Hussein. My hon. and learned Friend has just given us a chapter on the behaviour of Iraqi troops in Kuwait. We know, from the massive breaches of human rights in Iraq—the torture, the removal of political opponents and their death at the hands of the security forces—that there is neither the will nor the people to lead any attempt to remove Saddam Hussein in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Hogg: We shall see. The destruction that Saddam Hussein has brought upon his people may prompt them to remove him, and to do so soon.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I shall press on for a little while.
As regards our objectives, the reaction of the international community to this act of Iraqi aggression


was swift and resolute. Twelve resolutions have been passed by the Security Council, either unanimously or by overwhelming majorities. Some 30 countries have now committed themselves in support of the United Nations, either to enforce the embargo or to defend Saudi Arabia or to liberate Kuwait. Within this coalition are to be found 11 Muslim states, most notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria. This is an international operation, an exercise in collective security which is taking place under the authority of the United Nations.
Our objectives are clear: the full and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of the legitimate Government of that country arid the restoration of peace and security in the region. Iraq must also accept the authority of the Security Council and its decisions. We have no other objectives.
I have told the House what our objectives are. Now let me tell the House what we do not intend: we do not intend to occupy Iraq; we do not intend to change its borders; and we do not wish the destruction of its economy. While we would not grieve if Saddam Hussein were induced to stand aside, or otherwise ceased to be the leader of Iraq, it is no part of our purpose to change the Iraqi system of government or to select its leader for it. Moreover, while part of our legitimate campaign to expel Iraq from Kuwait will involve the dealing of heavy and telling blows, both against Iraqi troops in Kuwait and against legitimate military targets and facilities in Iraq which support Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, the destruction of the Iraqi army is not itself a war aim. That may happen in the course of the campaign, but it is not in itself a specific war objective.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend's extremely wise words will be welcomed throughout the House, with the emphasis that he puts on war aims. Will he confirm that that means there are no plans to occupy Basra, except in the course of pursuing the war, if, sadly, a land war has to start, and that there is no long-term American objective of taking Basra, as has been rumoured? Also, will he confirm that the Security Council will be in regular and frequent session, monitoring the progress of these unfortunate matters as they develop?

Mr. Hogg: As I said, occupying Iraq is not our objective—and Basra is part of Iraq—save in the process of expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait. What is true of this country is true of other countries within the coalition.
As regards the circumstances in which the conflict can be brought to an end, our purpose is to secure compliance with the Security Council resolutions. What the international community requires and has a right to expect is an unequivocal commitment by Iraq to withdraw its forces fully and unconditionally from Kuwait. When the Iraqi Government are ready to comply with the mandatory resolutions of the Security Council, they should say so unambiguously and match their words with decisive and irreversible proof. There needs to be clear evidence of withdrawal, and there must be repatriation of allied prisoners of war. As yet, there has been no such statement, there is no such proof and we have seen no such evidence. Accordingly, hostilities will continue.

Mr. Giles Radice: What is the Government's reaction to Saddam Hussein's speech this afternoon, which a number of us have been watching on CNN, including, I suspect, President Bush?

Mr. Hogg: I have not seen the speech, although I have heard reports of it. It would be premature to come to a firm conclusion, but, regretfully, it did not sound like the speech of a man who was about to comply unconditionally and irrevocably with the resolutions of the Security Council.
I now turn to the proposals put forward by the Soviet Government. On Monday evening my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a personal message from President Gorbachev. In it, Mr. Gorbachev set out the proposals which he had already put to the Iraqis and which he hoped might form the basis of a ceasefire.
The message was delivered and received in confidence and its full contents have not yet been publicised.
The Soviet Government have given the Iraqis yet another opportunity to comply with the requirements of the United Nations. We welcome that fact. What we now expect from Iraq is a response which fulfils those requirements. When we see that the United Nations Security Council resolutions are to be fulfilled, there can be an end to this conflict. This afternoon's launch of two Scud missiles to Saudi Arabia was not the message that we were looking for.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the Minister's judgment, is the view of the United Nations, in whose name this is supposedly being done, taken into account? Is any effect being made to ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations what he thinks before decisive action is taken?

Mr. Hogg: There is no supposedly about it. We are taking action under the authority of resolution 678 of the Security Council. We are acting under the authority of the United Nations and pursuant to the wishes of the Security Council.

Sir Alan Glyn: Does that include the destruction of chemical materials and possible atomic weapons in Iraq before the completion of the peace agreement?

Mr. Hogg: A great deal of damage has already been done to Iraq's chemical, and potential biological and nuclear warfare capacity, delaying its ability to produce such weaponry for a long lime to come.
Although we will not trespass beyond the terms of the Security Council resolutions, we do not propose to derogate from them. We are not seeking the humiliation of Iraq, but nor are we interested in face-saving formulas designed to remove Saddam Hussein from the hook on which he has impaled himself.
We will not allow the Iraqis to play for time. We will not put at risk the lives of our forces. We are determined to ensure an early return of British and allied prisoners of war. Iraq knows how to end this conflict: by a complete and unconditional compliance with the decisions of the United Nations. As Saddam Hussein was well aware, his proposals of 15 February did not meet that requirement.

Mr. Tony Benn: For three days now the War Cabinet has been in possession of the Soviet proposals, but has not yet disclosed them to the House or the public. As the War Cabinet has had an opportunity to study those proposals, it would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government believe


that, if Saddam Hussein accepted them in their entirety, the requirements that the Minister has set out would be satisfied.

Mr. Hogg: Welcome though they are, the Russian proposals do not ensure full compliance with the Security Council resolutions; nor do they ensure that Saddam Hussein will accept the authority of the Security Council.
When the conflict is over, there will be much to be done——

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hogg: No. I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.
As I have said, there will be much to be done: the reconstruction of Kuwait, the establishment of a durable and effective security structure for the Gulf states, a renewal of the efforts to promote a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem, and the setting up of a more effective arms control regime in the area. All those issues are urgent and important, but I shall confine myself on this occasion to the questions of Gulf security and the Arab-Israeli settlement.
We are willing to play a part in underpinning the arrangements that the Gulf states and other regional powers may devise, but the concepts, the proposals and the principal effort must come from within the region. We will respond if that is what is required by our Arab friends, but our commitment will inevitably be modest. It could take the form of a naval presence, training or joint exercises. What we could not consider is the stationing of British ground troops in the area, or a return to the pre-1971 east-of-Suez role. That would not be in the long-term interests of the region.
Saddam Hussein's attempt to link his invasion of Kuwait with the fate of the Palestinians was a lie, and was widely recognised as such; indeed, Saddam's aggression has made the search for a durable solution yet more difficult. Once the conflict is concluded, however, we need to return with yet greater vigour to our efforts to resolve the wider issues within the midle east. There are two principles on which we should stand: first, the right of Palestinians to determine their own political future; and, secondly, the right of Israel to live within secure and accepted frontiers. In the absence of a settlement, the middle east will remain unstable. We therefore have a duty to solve this problem, and an interest in doing so.
Let me deal now with the issue before the House. We applaud the despatch of British forces to the Gulf. We acknowledge their courage, skill and dedication to duty. We assert the importance of their task. We declare that they act under the authority of the United Nations, and to sustain that authority. It is for those reasons that they are there, and upon the achievement of which they will return.

Mr. George Robertson: After this afternoon's broadcast by President Saddam Hussein, this must be a sombre day in the House and throughout the world. The position is not clear but, as the Minister has said, it does not sound promising. Of course, we must wait for an authoritative version of the speech, and we must also wait to see what message Mr. Tariq Aziz takes with him to Moscow tonight. We must hope that Saddam Hussein will

see sense even at this late hour, but if Saddam's message constitutes a rejection of the Soviet peace plan and he does not intend to withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally, any decision to start a land assault will have been made not by the allies but by Saddam Hussein himself.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: Not at this early stage—I must get on with my speech.
Today's debate is about war aims. The country will surely be asking, "Are not the war aims of the 28 nations in the coalition perfectly clear, and are they not enshrined precisely and concisely in all 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions under which the liberation of Kuwait is authorised?".
Thousands of British troops—constituents of all of us—are in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Many are from Scotland, reflecting the Scottish domination of the professional army of which this country is so proud. They are ready to risk their lives to get Saddam Hussein's army out of the land that it has annexed and to restore a legitimate Government to Kuwait, a sovereign country which has been eliminated and brutalised by Iraq since 2 August last year. Those British troops demand, deserve and will receive the continuing support of their Parliament and their fellow countrymen and women. They are far from us and from their families, and they face a powerful and well-armed opposing force which cannot and should not be underestimated.
Let us be clear and unanimous on one point. From the beginning, ever since the invasion of Kuwait, the war has been the responsibility of one person and one person alone—the one person who, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) pointed out, could have stopped the conflict, bombing and destruction on both sides at any time of his choice in the past six months. Saddam Hussein started the war on 2 August when he invaded Kuwait. With his rejection of every peace plan that was presented before the United Nations deadline of 15 January, he personally continued that war and the misery that it inflicted on his people and the people of Kuwait.
The hon. Member for Govan, whose professional background gives him great insight into the affairs of the region, said in a perceptive article in The Scotsman on 12 January:
I may of course be wrong and perhaps Saddam's extravagant rhetoric is for real and he will not budge for anything. If so then the use of early force is inevitable, because if Saddam is still in Kuwait after Ramadan he will never be removed.
On 28 January, the hon. Gentleman wrote in the same paper:
Whatever one may think about the use of sanctions or whether a final compromise offer should have been made to him, we cannot ignore the stark evidence that Saddam Hussein calmly chose the path of war.
Time and again, he has rejected every opening given to him.
Until last Friday there was not the slightest inkling that Saddam cared anything for an end to the punishment of his people. and even as we speak in this debate there is still no evidence that last Friday's signal was anything more than a device to avoid some possible extension of the conflict.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister described the Soviet proposal as inadequate in some unspecified way. I


understand that the Leader of the Opposition has had a briefing from the Soviet ambassador. Can the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) tell us whether, in the view of the Labour party, the Soviet proposal is adequate and a basis for settlement?

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear yesterday that, from what he knows and has been told of the outline of the Soviet proposal, in general it contains points that we would support; but my right hon. Friend made it clear on one specific issue, as we have done since the beginning of the war, where there is some doubt about what the Soviet proposal actually says, that we will support a ceasefire only if there is a genuine, complete and immediate implementation of unconditional withdrawal. As I shall go on to say, we believe that the Soviet peace plan offered an opportunity to break the inflexibility, which might well have prevented a further extension of the conflict.
However, for the sake of the wider peace of the world, we must hope beyond hope that even in these few hours President Gorbachev's brave and imaginative initiative may appeal to the Iraqis. Saddam Hussein now knows what he is up against. He knows that he cannot win, and he must by now realise that he must unconditionally leave Kuwait before there can be any ceasefire. He must also know, because he has been told often enough, that by withdrawing he can avoid the assault that will follow any new decision on his part to "choose the path of war". He must also be convinced that if he withdraws and complies there will be no question of an outside threat to himself or the dismantling of his Government or state.
Our troops out there in the desert also know that by a deliberate policy of minimising any civilian casualties in Iraq they perhaps prolonged the conflict and undoubtedly added to their own risks, but it was an essential part of showing that our standards are in marked contrast with those of Saddam, with his indiscriminate and random Scud attacks on populated civilian areas in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Our troops know what they are fighting for and can be clear that the objectives of the whole military exercise are to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait and restore that country's own Government in line with all the United Nations resolutions.
We are absolutely clear in the Labour party about this. On 21 January, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
The war aims of liberating Kuwait from occupation and restoring the legitimate Government are precise and limited, and rightly so.
He went on to say that they
do not relate to the dismembering of Iraq … or include … the death of a dictator."—[Official Report. 21 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 33.]
On Tuesday this week the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), made it clear that
Saddam's removal is in no sense a war aim",
and he has been precise and explicit this afternoon as well. I would like also to quote General Schwarzkopf, whose words at a press conference yesterday are reported as follows in The Guardian today:
But when asked if he would consider his military mission successful if Iraq withdrew unconditionally from Kuwait, even though Hussein might remain in power with part of his military intact, he replied 'Absolutely. The President has said all along that we weren't out to destroy the country of Iraq, we weren't out to destroy the army of Iraq'.

That is the commander of the American forces in the area and the leader of the alliance of 28 nations.
Those words seem to me explicitly to remove any ambiguity that may have existed. The Minister and the general were right to reiterate those truths and they were also correct to underline the strict and sensible limitations on what the alliance is in the Gulf to do.

Ms. Short: I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that what the Minister of State said today is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that when I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether that part of the United Nations resolution which talks about destroying international peace and security in the area might authorise the attempt to destroy the Iraqi regime, its war machine and so on, he said that it might well, but that what he has said today is a very welcome change and shift back from that?

Mr. Robertson: I am not certain whether it is a change or not, but this debate was called specifically to consider the war aims. I believe that what the Minister has said in such precise terms removes any ambiguity that others may have indicated and that General Schwarzkopf, speaking on behalf of the American forces, has also said something which will reassure those who may have believed until now that there was some ambiguity.
It is right that we should consider the war aims because they are intimately connected with the aims of peace. The peace and stability referred to in resolution 678, which must be the overwhelming objective after Iraq leaves, will be accomplished by the way in which the war is conducted and concluded. There is concern that the liberation of Kuwait will none the less create a martyr and lead to the birth of Saddam Hussein as an Arab hero, even a posthumous one, especially if the masses in the Arab countries who are in the coalition choose to follow his message rather than that of the United Nations. It is therefore crucial that we in this unique coalition win the political campaign as well as the military one. So, in being precise about the aims of the war, we can and must be precise about the aims of peace. That is why the aims of the war and of the peace lie in all the Security Council resolutions and not just in resolution 660.
On the motion and amendment before the House, the Labour party believes that there need not be a vote this evening. Before the House we have a motion and an amendment, both framed in words which seem to say exactly the same thing. One would have to be a forensic scientist—perhaps a political forensic scientist—to spot the differences. So why are we being forced to choose? Could there not have been some common resolution which would have united the objectives of both sides of the House?

Mr. Livingstone: We are going to have a vote, whatever happens, George.

Mr. Robertson: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would have voted whatever the resolution was and I fear that he would have been on the losing side whatever the resolution was as well.
I add, in a spirit of no acrimony at all, that I frankly cannot understand why the Scottish National party insists in the final line of the motion that the end to the present conflict is compatible only with resolution 660 and not


with all 12 of the United Nations resolutions on Kuwait. Labour Members believe that all the resolutions matter, not only for the war but for a just and securely based peace when it is all over. We therefore believe that in those circumstances a perhaps unnecessary distinction is being drawn in the motion which seems to derive from a difference between the Government and the SNP. We shall therefore adhere to our usual policy in minority party debates and stay out of the argument and out of the Lobbies.

Mr. Benn: Two questions will be before the House: whether or not to accept or vote for the SNP motion—which many, including myself, cannot accept—and a Government amendment preceded by a speech from the Minister who has rejected the Soviet proposal as unacceptable. Yet the hopes of the world and of those who wish to avoid a land war hinge on the possibility that Saddam Hussein will accept it. I hope that my hon. Friend will not invite us to assent to the Government's view that the Soviet proposal is unacceptable.
Those are the issues that will be before us.

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend was perhaps listening to the radio rather than to what I said. I said that we would stay out of the argument and stay out of the Lobbies. We support neither the SNP motion nor the Government amendment. My right hon. Friend has been a Member of the House a great deal longer than I have. He knows that speeches are not the same as motions and that we are being asked to vote on a motion dealing with aims and objectives.
The Gulf war has been a wholly avoidable conflict. It was, and still is, the creation of a brutal repressive dictator who, not for the first time, is willing to see his poor benighted people further persecuted for the sake of his own futile megalomaniac territorial ambitions.
The issue before us is of some importance because out of the war, with all the dreadful problems that it has created, has come one major benefit. It is that the role of the United Nations has been exercised, as we always hoped that it would and never expected that it could, and that the United Nations is pivotal to the construction of the peace that must come hereafter. All parties in the House agree that the aims of the war lie precisely in the authority given from the United Nations. If we are to learn from all that has happened, it is essential that the aims of the peace must also lie in the United Nations. In that way alone, the outcome of the peace can be as certain as the outcome of the war.

Sir Dennis Walters: The obvious joy and relief shown by Iraqi people when it looked as though Saddam Hussein had agreed to withdraw from Kuwait indicated better than anything what their true feelings are. They have already paid a heavy price for Saddam Hussein's indefensible adventurism and we all hope that their suffering, and that of the people of Kuwait who have been subjected to appalling torment since August, will soon be ended. From what we have just heard, however, it would appear that Saddam Hussein is determined to make the ending of the war even bloodier than its beginning.
It was never likely that the Gulf war would end either bloodlessly or in a matter of days. Saddam Hussein's determination to hang on to Kuwait made war inevitable and war is never surgical or painless.
The danger of the war escalating in other directions seems to have receded and Saddam's missiles over Israel have so far not achieved their primary objective. More than anything else, what rockets over Tel Aviv, launched from Iraq, have shown is the futility of the argument that a mini-Palestinian state on the west bank and Gaza was the main threat against which Israel had to guard. With modern weapons, a few extra miles of land are quite insignificant. A future threat to Israel would arise not from the west bank, but as a result of Israel's not having achieved a modus vivendi within an overwhelmingly Arab world and not having defused the Palestinian issue by agreeing to self-determination in the west bank and Gaza. If Israel was willing to do that, it would have an excellent opportunity of living in peace with its Arab neighbours, as it has successfully done with Egypt.
Saddam wanted Kuwait and refused to believe that the United Nations resolutions would be implemented, if necessary by force, so any form of negotiation with him would have come to nothing and he became interested in the Palestinian cause only when he realised that it was a useful card to play.
Even so, our reluctance to give prompt support to the idea of an international conference on the Arab-Israeli dispute—which after all is British and European policy—is not wholly easy to understand. We seemed to get unnecessarily bogged down in the semantics of "linkage".
The reality is that there is a clear association between the incapacity of the United Nations to deal effectively with Israel's unlawful occupation of Arab territory acquired by force in 1967—in particular, of the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, which is all that remained of mandatory Palestine—and the extremely effective way in which the United Nations has dealt with the unprovoked aggression on Kuwait in 1990. United Nations resolution 242 has never been implemented. Nearly half a million American and allied troops have gone to war to implement resolution 660.
We all refer constantly these days to the breaking of the Geneva convention—quite rightly so—yet the Geneva convention has been broken day in, day out for 23 years in the Israeli occupied territories provoking little protest. Why did the United States either veto or blunt successive United Nations resolutions on Israel while leading the field against Iraq? These are not academic questions—they go to the heart of the divisions, instability and bitterness that prevail in the Arab world and explain why, despite everything that a devious and cruel despot like Saddam Hussein has done, he still enjoys considerable support. Unless they are satisfactorily answered, the charge of double standards will stand and in the long run the consequences will be disastrous.
When Saddam Hussein has been defeated and Kuwait liberated there will be an opportunity to resolve these festering problems, and it must be seized.
An international conference on the Arab-Israeli question is no magic or exclusive formula. What is essential is that the Palestinian question should be resolved according to the principles of the United Nations charter and the resolutions of the United Nations.
Resolution 242, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in the war of June 1967, and which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described as
the internationally agreed basis for settlement",
must be enforced. The Palestinians have a right to self-determination and Britain has a particular moral responsibility to Palestine which it must stop trying to shirk.
The Palestinians must negotiate with Israel—of course—but they are entitled to choose who represents them; if that representation turns out to be the PLO, Israel must accept that fact. Alternatively, free elections, supervised by the United Nations, should be held as a matter of urgent priority on the west bank and in Gaza so that the Palestinians can elect their representatives. Palestinians in the diaspora should also be represented, and in any event almost certainly the PLO would continue to be the chosen representatives of the Palestinians within and without.
Israel has a right to guaranteed and secure borders—of course it has—but those borders must be defined according to international law and United Nations resolutions.
Personally I take the view that Mr. Arafat was gravely mistaken in lending support to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even though he had been seriously provoked. Professor Waleed Khalidi put it well when he said recently that in the years before the crisis Arafat had
probed the outermost circumference of concessions to Israel in the hopes of winning the dialogue with the United States. But no sooner had the dialogue begun than it became clear that Washington, despite its commitment to a substantive dialogue, was bent on treating Arafat like a criminal on probation, denying him a visa to the United Nations, hounding the PLO out of UN bodies.
That said, Arafat was still wrong because the principles violated by Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait are the very principles from which the Palestinian cause derives its moral strength.
Western economies are oil-oriented and will remain so in the foreseeable future. It is therefore imperative, even as a matter of pure self-interest, that we should resolve a problem that has been at the root of all the disputes and turmoil in the middle east for the past 40 years and that the United Nations should retain the momentum. An overall settlement should include an agreement to ban all nuclear and chemical weapons in the area. It should apply to all the relevant countries in the middle east, including Israel, and should be properly monitored and enforced by a United Nations supervisory team backed by the Security Council. Unless these things are done, all the efforts and sacrifices to defeat Saddam Hussein will have been in vain. Bitterness and frustration will grow, other Saddam Husseins will emerge, and peace and stability in the middle east will be as far away as ever.

Sir David Steel: In the interests of the brevity that the Chair has sought, I shall refrain from following the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters) into wider middle east questions. I do, however, agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said on the subject.
This debate began in very sad and sombre mood. Just after 3.30 pm we heard reports of Saddam Hussein's television speech, in which he said that Iraq's armed forces are determined to continue their struggle—thereby, in my

view, removing any last hope that the Soviet proposals might have any real effect. Saddam Hussein went on to say that he was sending Tariq Aziz back to Moscow tonight with counter-proposals, which he described—I think I have the correct translation—as the sister of those that he had made previously. In other words, this is a different orchestration of the same tune. This House must do what the five permanent members of the Security Council did in recent days—make it clear that we do not need alternative proposals from Saddam Hussein. All that he needs to do is withdraw unconditionally and quickly. He should announce his intention to withdraw from Kuwait and then withdraw immediately. That would bring the war to an end. But Saddam Hussein is not doing that.
In the meantime, the parliamentary human rights group has produced evidence that the people of Kuwait continue to suffer as a result of the appalling inhumanity of the occupying regime. I shall dwell on this for a moment because, like many other hon. Members, I am impressed by the effect that much of the television reporting from Baghdad has had on public opinion in this country. At the weekends in my constituency I find deep resentment at the fact that so much censored and doctored material fills our television screens. Most people accept, with deep regret, the casualties that have occurred inside Iraq as a result of allied action. They accept that those are a catastrophic harsh accident of war. But that is very different from the catalogue of deliberately inflicted cruelty that the document from the parliamentary human rights group lists. It is different in kind and, in my view, it is altogether different in moral standing. We have to remind ourselves that, in view of the action being taken by the occupying forces in Kuwait, and in view of the many peace initiatives that have been taken but have come to nothing, it is right that our forces should be given full support for the action that they have to take.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Steel: I will give way once, but only very briefly.

Mr. Rowe: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the recent accounts of Iraqi prisoners and some refugees having said that the extraordinary accuracy of the allied bombing left their houses untouched, while military establishments next door were destroyed.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What about the shelter?

Sir David Steel: I accept that there have been regrettable casualties. It was not our intention or our wish that there should be such casualties. All that I am saying is that they are different from the cruelty and barbarism being deliberately inflicted on the people of Kuwait—cruelty and barbarism that were catalogued by our colleagues two days ago.
It is the view of my party that we should not be justified in moving to the next stage—what will inevitably be an even bloodier war on land—were we not fully satisfied that every realistic peace initiative to prevent that war had been completely explored. We have never pooh-poohed the efforts of the Jordanians, the French, the Soviets, or anyone else. However, we have to face the harsh reality that all those initiatives, however well meant, have failed.
It is right that this House, while supporting the forces to the full, should debate the war and lay down limits to its aims. We have to say yet again that we regard the aim of the war as being limited to the liberation of Kuwait, the restoration of peace and stability there, and the restoration of the country's sovereignty and its government. In that connection, I seek three assurances from the Minister of State. I welcome very much what he had to say about the non-occupation of Iraq. That is very important. In the press a few days ago, there was a report of an American official having talked about preparations for some kind of interim administration in the city of Basra. It is very important that such loose talk be stamped on firmly. The Minister of State did so, and on that score we need ask no more.
The second assurance that I seek concerns the nature of the destruction that inevitably arises from allied raids. Of course, we all understand the need to interrupt transport lines and to attack bridges and power stations. A newspaper article, referring to a very important report issued by Greenpeace, says:'
The war zone is littered with storage tanks filled with chemicals of the petrochemical industry, including benzene, ethylene and hydrochloric acid.
Bombing or land detonation would spill their contents. 'Release of large amounts of these and other toxic substances could cause loss of life both to human and to terrestrial and marine life,' the environmental group said in a report published yesterday.
Detonation of phosgene and chlorine gas storage tanks posed a further risk.
I should like an assurance that our forces will be given an instruction that every effort that is reasonable, given the knowledge of these tanks, will be made to avoid any further environmental destruction. I repeat: I accept that, in war, accidents are inevitable.
The third assurance that I seek concerns the much-discussed question of the supposed removal of Saddam Hussein himself. No doubt we all agree that that is an end devoutly to be wished. The dancing in the streets of Baghdad the other day following the false reports that he was prepared to leave Kuwait showed that it is something devoutly to be wished by most Iraqi people, too. Those television pictures depicted a very significant interlude. However, it is not for the allied forces to say who should rule Iraq. That has nothing to do with the United Nations resolutions. Were we to try to dictate who should rule Kuwait—were we to try to extend the war aims to include the removal of any government in Iraq—we should be making the same mistake as Saddam Hussein is making. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to assure us that that is not part of the Government's understanding of the war aims and of Security Council authorisation.
The amendment that we tabled, although it has not been selected, expresses our view very clearly. Since hostilities began, I have often expressed the anxiety that we may win the military war but lose the political war. It is desperately important that loose talk be ended. I think that such talk has come mainly from American sources. We have heard it said that there may have to be a long period of western occupation in the middle east. It should be made clear that the presence of American or British forces there following the war is not part of the Government's objectives. We must ensure that any long-term British

presence would be under the direct authority or command of the United Nations and that, when the peace comes, the long-term security of the area and the peace settlement will be implemented and supervised by the United Nations. If we can achieve that, out of this disaster may yet come precisely the sort of authority for the United Nations that many of us have long hoped to see.

Sir John Stokes: I think that this is the fourth debate that we have had on the Gulf war. I do not complain about that; indeed, I am glad about it. However, we must bear in mind what has happened in the past. I recall that the turning point of the second world war was the tremendous battle at El Alamein which lasted 11 days. During that time the House was in recess and it was not recalled.
Perhaps on this very solemn occasion I can make a lighter remark. When I first saw that the motion was to be proposed in the name of the Scottish National party, all my historical and Jacobite sentiments began to tingle. I thought that the motion might be some new and startling motion about the restoration of the Stuarts or some other impossible cause. However, I was being far too romantic and imaginative.
When listening to the carefully reasoned and argued speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), I thought that he was a little cheese-paring in his attitude to the Government. I believe that the Government's amendment is absolutely right to state that
the aims of British military action are to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations Security Council's resolution.
That summarises the matter perfectly.
Diplomatic opportunities are sometimes dangerous and disappointing. The Soviet opportunity was largely instigated by Mr. Gorbachev because of his obvious inherent local difficulties. I believe that the Soviet action was being used by Saddam Hussein to try, if possible, to divide the allies and to delay the inevitable advance of the coalition armies to repossess Kuwait. We know as a result of the end of the Iraq-Iran war that Saddam Hussein is a past master of deceit and dissimulation. The allied solidarity under the United Nations umbrella has been a remarkable phenomenon, unique since the second world war, and it holds out great hope for world peace in future.
There will be little hope of peace in the region if Saddam is left with a large army, biological and chemical warfare facilities and possibly atomic weapons. The state of Kuwait is now spiritually, morally and physically appalling. It will need to be built up to regain its life as a nation. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states will also continue to feel threatened unless Saddam's army is defeated. The whole area will therefore continue to experience instability and the allied forces may be compelled to remain there at least for a short time, although I very much hope that that will not be necessary.
Once peace has been secured and safeguarded, the United Nations will be able to concentrate on the other pressing problems in the middle east such as the highly unsatisfactory situation with regard to Israel and the occupied territories about which reference was made most eloquently and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters).
I am pleased that the motion refers to the overwhelming support for the British forces in the Gulf. As Kipling once


said in a famous poem, perhaps it takes a war for people remember the debt that we all owe to our armed services. The armed services, from private to general, have been most impressive on television. The people whom we have sent to the Gulf in the Army, Navy and the Royal Air Force are the cream of our nation and the debt that we owe them is immense. They have maintained in their professional service those ideals of chivalry, honour, courage and service to the Queen to which some other professions in this country could well look.
The only thing that dismays me is that the support for our forces, which is widely felt throughout the country, is not entirely shared by some sections of the news media which have now become so terrifyingly and overwhelmingly important. If the news media are not controlled—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—they will present a great danger to many facets of life in this nation. If we are not careful, we shall be dominated by what comes out of that television box night after night.
At first the BBC—and later ITV—broadcast many programmes which lasted all day and were often boring and repetitive. Like many of my colleagues, I am worried by the attitude of some of the press people in Baghdad who fail to point out that they are speaking under duress and are showing only what the Iraqis want them to show. As a great admirer of what the BBC once was and of Lord Reith, I say with sadness that the BBC has failed the nation as it failed the nation during the Falklands war. Its lack of patriotism sticks out a mile and I should like to see a thorough investigation of those producers whose loyalties seem in doubt. Those ideas men and very dangerous people seem miles away from the ordinary Englishmen we meet in the streets.
We have now heard that the Soviet initiative has been destroyed as a result of Saddam's recent speech in which he said that he wanted war. Therefore, a final assault on his forces seems inevitable. As I know the country and was a soldier there for some time, I emphasise that we must not assume that our attack will he a walkover. Heavy artillery and large tanks which are well dug in are difficult to neutralise by bombing alone. In the end, the poor old infantry—the men with rifles and bayonets—must go over the top and occupy, seize and hold the ground. We must therefore prepare ourselves for the possibility of heavy losses and high casualties, although I pray that I am wrong. Meanwhile, our duty is to back our forces, the resolution and the United Nations.

Ms. Clare Short: I am pleased to have the chance to participate in this extremely important debate and to follow some enormously important and constructive speeches about the expansion of the war aims and the post-war settlement. However, I must first tell the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) that, when he criticises the BBC, he undermines democracy in our country. There is no reporting freedom in countries like Iraq. The tide of opinion from the Tory Benches constantly calls for more censorship so that the people of this country cannot learn as much as is necessary about the war that is being prosecuted in their names. That is deeply undemocratic.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: I am sorry, but I cannot give way as time is short. [Interruption.] I have a lot to say and I do not want to waste time on trivial interventions.
I want to put before the House my analysis of the grave errors that have been made by the United States Government in their handling of the crisis in Kuwait. shall do so not only to criticise what has been done in the past—serious though that is, and history will analyse it—but because it seems to me that the way in which the war is being prosecuted has major implications for the post-war settlement in the middle east. The evidence so far is that that settlement is likely to be disastrous and to leave the middle east even more unstable than now. In my judgment, it is unlikely that the Palestinian issue will be settled, although it is desperately urgent that it should he settled. In my judgment, there will inevitably he another war in the middle east in the next 10 years. I remind the House that there have been wars in the middle east in 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and now there is a war in 1991. If there is no decent settlement following the war, there will be yet another war.
The background to this conflict and the major cause of the disaster is United States policy in the middle east—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will let me put my views to the House—if they are democrats. It is strange that the United States of America intervened when Britain was involved in a disastrous strategy at the time of Suez and prevented that by making a constructive intervention. Ever since then, however, the United States has seemed to have a short-sighted policy, which has basically been to prop up the state of Israel, to hack it in all its intransigence and its gross breaches of international law in terms of its behaviour towards the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The United States has massively subsidised the Israeli state and has given it a mighty war machine. That means that the United States of America has colluded in the confiscation of half the land in the occupied territories—a grave breach of the Geneva convention: colluded in the expulsion of Palestinians from the occupied territories—a grave breach of the Geneva convention: colluded in the detention without trial of nearly half the males who live in the occupied territories—another grave breach of the Geneva convention; and colluded in the horrendous beatings and shootings of men, women and children in the occupied territories, which is also a grave breach of the Geneva convention. Israel has incorporated east Jerusalem into the Israeli state, and also the Golan Heights. That is totally illegal under international law, but the United States of America backs and subsidises Israel and gives it arms.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Tell us why.

Ms. Short: Please allow me to make my speech.
The suffering of the Palestinian people is heartbreaking to all of us who have visited the occupied territories and have seen in hospitals some of the children who have been damaged and beaten since the intifada began. It has also led to enormous distress and to a feeling of humiliation throughout the Arab world. That has led to the attitude in the Arab world that the United States of America is hostile to the Arab world and to the interests of the Palestinians. In the end, it is leading to a great and deep sense of antagonism towards the United States of America


throughout the middle east. It also means that the Arab powers feel deeply threatened by the mighty war machine of Israel.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms. Short: No, I am sorry.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose——

Ms. Short: I am sorry, but I am not giving way—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Ms. Short: I should like to give way, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is obvious from the noise that if I gave way I should not be able to complete my speech. I think that the best thing to do is simply to put my views before the House—if some of the rude Conservative Members, who are hardly honourable, will allow me to do so.
There is an enormous feeling about the Palestinian issue throughout the middle east. There is, therefore, enormous antagonism towards the United States of America because it has backed all the illegality and intransigence of the state of Israel. There is also a feeling of threat and worry about the possibility of future wars because there have been many previous wars. There is therefore a need for Arab states to seek to arm themselves to counter the might of the power of Israel. Thus, western Governments charge into the middle east to sell arms to all the Governments in that region simply to make money, thereby increasing the instability of the middle east and the danger of the constant repetition of war.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Short: No, the hon. Gentleman knows that I will not.
The west and the United States of America have played a major role of complicity in building up the power of the monstrous tyrant, Saddam Hussein. It was convenient for the United States of America when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. It was the same breach of international law, but because Iran was seen as a threat to United States interests at that time, Saddam Hussein was massively supplied with weapons, equipment and export credits by the west, and by the Soviet Union. However, there is absolutely no question—it is a matter of historical record—that America snuggled up to Saddam Hussein and supported him by providing him with intelligence information when prosecuting that war because that was convenient to America as Iran was seen as the major threat to American interests at that time.
Although our own country officially stopped supplying arms to Iraq following the beginning of that war—a million people died in a war that the west, especially the United States, helped to feed—we allowed the superguns to get into Iraq. That story has not been fully told—[Interruption.] If hon. Members look at the evidence, they will see that that was not stopped. This country also supplied export credits after we had ceased to supply arms. After the gassing of the Kurds, the current Foreign Secretary went to see Saddam Hussein, offered him export credits and tried to improve the relationship between Iraq

and Britain. Tory Members may well rise now to talk about the gassing of the Kurds, but we heard none of that at the time.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said, we also know that, following the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when there was a dispute between Kuwait and Iraq about whether Iraq had to pay back the loans that had been given to it by Kuwait when helping to prosecute the war, the then United States ambassador gave a signal to Kuwait and to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not object if there was some military action against Kuwait. That is an enormously important issue. History will show exactly what happened, but there is no doubt that that happened and it is another major element in the complicity of the United States of America and the fact that we are now involved in this war.
None the less, the invasion of Kuwait was intolerable and unacceptable. It was a grave breach of international law and must be reversed. The whole world agreed on sanctions. The evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency gave to the committees of Congress in the United States suggested that sanctions were working effectively. Because we have such a weak democracy in this country, we could not dream of asking our intelligence services what they thought about the working of sanctions. That is just one issue that shows the poverty of democracy in Britain.
Not to continue with sanctions for longer was an enormous historical error. We could have dealt with the tyrant Saddam Hussein by using sanctions. If we could have reversed that grave breach of international law by using sanctions in this instance, we could do so in others, and the world would move to a higher level of civilisation. It is shameful and disgraceful that that attempt was not made.

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose——

Ms. Short: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The question is this: did the United States of America give up on sanctions deliberately because of its strategy in the middle east and because it decided that it had better use the situation in Kuwait to break the power of the Iraqi war machine, or did the United States blunder into war? I am inclined to think that it was incompetence and blunder and that the turning point came when President Bush, who is constantly trying to prove that he is not a wimp, sent out further soldiers. By the time there were votes about sanctions or war, the thing had been decided. The beginning of the end of the sanctions strategy came when the extra forces were sent out in November. I suspect that Bush thought that he could frighten Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but when all his troops were there he realised that he would look like a wimp if he did not call a war. That is why we have this monstrous war instead of continuing with sanctions.
Another background point is the deeply worrying situation in the United Nations Security Council. We all respect the United Nations—I have never heard Tory Members have so much respect for the United Nations before—but we must recognise that, with the decline of the power of the Soviet Union, there is no longer a balance in the Security Council to represent the interests of the world.
The United States has been able to manipulate and misuse the United Nations to undermine the latter's authority in the world——

Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ms. Short: No, I am sorry but I cannot give way to my hon. Friend because I have not given way to any other hon. Member.
Unlike most of my hon. Friends, for whom I have great respect and whose feelings I understand, I felt, once we were at war and had given up on sanctions, that it was not right for me simply to rail against the war. As a politician, I thought that it was our job to ensure that the war was cut short, to minimise casualties and to achieve a just settlement. Therefore, I have taken a rather different perspective from those who simply say that they were against the war from the beginning, although I respect their position.
The gung-ho Conservative Members and our nasty tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun and The Daily Star, do not care for our troops. Their attitude encourages a bigger war, which means more casualties and more deaths. That is not the best way to care for the interests of our troops. Those of us who wish to contain the war and bring it to an end are doing our best to care for them. That is a more honourable and intelligent attitude.
There is absolutely no doubt that there has been deliberate duplicity on the question of widening the war aims as shown by the evidence produced by the hon. Member for Govan. Once the war had started, it became clear that the United States of America was followed, poodle like, by Britain. Anyone who thinks that Britain has influenced what has happened should realise that Britain has constantly followed what America decided to do. America started to change the objectives of the war. It ceased to talk about the liberation of Kuwait and started to emphasise the part of the Security Council's resolution which dealt with the restoration of international peace and security in the area. That is carte blanche for anything.
I am told that during the arguments on the drawing up of the resolution to authorise "all necessary means", many countries would not vote for a resolution which contained the words "including force"—so the phrase "all necessary means" was used so that America could later interpret it to mean force. At the same time, the section of the resolution dealing with the restoration of international peace and security in the area was slipped in deliberately to allow room for manoeuvre in interpreting it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who says?"] The researchers who did the work for the Brian Walden programme. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is an enormously well-resourced and respected programme. However, this is a serious analysis, so it will not interest Conservative Members.
We should all like to see Saddam Hussein fall, but the question of how we achieve that is crucial to the post-war settlement. I believe that the nature of the bombardment of Baghdad, with the deliberate destruction of the civilian population's water supplies, sewage systems and access to medical care and electricity, is, in practice, an enlargement of the war aims. Some of the bombardment cannot be justified for military purposes. The Arab world now takes the attitude that the war aims have been widened and that it is now a question of an attack on an Arab country. The Arabs believe that we do not care about the death of Arab

children and Arab women, but only about our own casualties. There has been a sweeping change in attitude in the Arab world—from initial hostility to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait to the belief that America is destroying an Arab country to perpetuate its control of the middle east. That is very dangerous for the post-war settlement. It is a question of winning the war but possibly losing the peace.
There are two possible post-war settlements. I believe that the most likely is the pessimistic settlement. The United States is now determined to destroy Iraq. It is interesting that the United States, again followed poodle-like by Britain, rubbished the Soviet initiative from the beginning.
The briefing from this morning's war Cabinet, as reported in the Evening Standard, said:
There will be no let-up in the war against Saddam Hussein, even if he accepts all the Soviet proposals for peace.
That means that the war aims are wider than the liberation of Kuwait.
If the objective is to destroy Iraq, the likelihood is that America will continue to see its interests protected by propping up the Israeli state and not settling the Palestinian issue. America and Britain will send arms to prop up the Gulf states and maintain a military presence in the Gulf. There will inevitably be another war in the middle east, possibly over Syria, which happens to have switched sides to the coalition, but which could easily switch back again. That is another horrible, tyrannous regime with a mighty war machine.
The second possibility—and one for which we should aim—is to seek the liberation of Kuwait, and only that. We should then seek to remove all non-conventional weapons—nuclear, chemical and biological—from Israel, Syria and Iraq. We should also settle the Palestinian issue by giving the Palestinians their state based on the west bank and Gaza. Since the Palestinians changed their objective, gave up their aspiration to a secular state in the whole of the old Palestine, and simply said that they wanted their own state in the occupied territories, that problem has been resolvable. It is a disgrace that the United States did not respond to that massive shift by the Palestinians, which meant that the old dispute could have been resolved.
The optimistic settlement would be to remove weaponry from the region, to stop selling arms, to settle the Palestinian question and to seek the development of an economic community which would mean that the wealth of the oil states could be properly shared by the people of the middle east. There is enormous resentment in the middle east that the tiny, undemocratic states monopolise the wealth and that it is not shared by all.
We are now on the brink of a war which, so the military experts and the Iraqi soldiers who have surrendered tell us, will inevitably become a chemical war. That would be a horrendous war, not just in terms of our own casualties, but of Iraqi soldier casualties. Hon. Members should realise that many young Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait do not want to be there. I have a friend whose brave family have resisted the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for years and who have been persecuted for it. That family has a son in Kuwait and he is wholly opposed to the Iraqi regime. There are many like him in Kuwait at the end of a barrel of a gun.
If chemicals are used in the war against Israel, heaven knows what the escalation will be. Even if Saddam Hussein agrees to the initiative at this late stage, a ground


war seems inevitable. The Government are not interested in whether he agrees with the Soviet peace proposal. That is disgraceful. The way in which the war is fought is crucial. Are we to try to slaughter the Iraqis in Kuwait or seek an opportunity for them to surrender? Have we made broadcasts or given them leaflets to assure them that they will be properly treated? Have we looked for routes to get them out through the minefields? Today and yesterday, there have been big demonstrations in Iraq of people calling for the downfall of Saddam Hussein and his regime. We are bombing them: why are we not telling them that our war is not with the Iraqi people and giving them the right to get rid of this tyrant who has oppressed them for so many years?
We have heard about the horrendous treatment of the Kuwaiti people. Saddam Hussein's regime has treated the Iraqi people like that for a long time. One report after another from Amnesty International has shown that he put the children of political opponents in prison to torture them and get the parents to confess. The brutality in Kuwait has been perpetrated on the Iraqi people for a long time. We should deplore it all and not use part of it to justify the bombardment of the Iraqi people who have suffered for so long.
I appeal to the British Government to cease being a poodle. It seems that in our mono-power world—in which the United States is dominant because the Soviet Union is in such a weak position—the possible balancing power is Europe. But Europe is unable to act, even though it has a better understanding than the United States has of the middle east and of the need to settle the Palestinian question. Britain is so attached to the policy of the United States that Europa is disabled and unable to act to balance that policy.
In all seriousness, I know that the Foreign Secretary understands the situation in the middle east very well, but he does not talk as if he did. Even when the European Foreign Ministers met, our Foreign Secretary imposed conditions when it was said that there had to be a settlement of the Palestinian issue. He said, "But the question is, who will we talk to?" It is not for Britain or Israel to say with which Palestinians we shall talk. We should talk to the representatives whom the Palestinian people choose. That is democracy. I ask in all seriousness even at this late hour for the British Government to be wiser about this conflict and not lead us into a dreadful war which could escalate horrendously and resonate for years to come.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I reiterate Mr. Speaker's appeal that hon. Members make short speeches, in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). As she knows, I have great respect for her honesty and the courage with which she expresses views which are frequently wrong, but nevertheless sincerely held.
I wish to comment on some of the hon. Lady's remarks before making my brief speech. First, the hon. Lady and several of her right hon. and hon. Friends have a paranoia about the United States which I find depressing. One must

remember that the reason why it is possible even to consider Europe as a counterweight to the United States or, indeed, the Soviet Union is that the United States gave so much money and time, and suffered bloodshed, to assist the Europeans to rebuild their economies after the war, which the Americans helped us to win, and to remain steadfastly in Europe at considerable cost to themselves right up till now, when the Soviet empire is crumbling and change has been brought about there as a direct consequence of the support that the Americans have given.
In many parts of the world the Americans have been extremely supportive of democracy. Of course, all great powers and all small powers make mistakes from time to time. The Americans have taken action at times which I would find difficult to support. Certainly, with hindsight, many Americans regret those actions. But we are free to discuss whether the Americans are or are not appropriate allies only because of the steadfastness of America in the past.
I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Ladywood that it would have been lovely if sanctions could have been made to work. If they could have been made to work, sanctions would have been by far the cheapest, least bloody and most effective way of cutting off the Iraqi aggression. If ever there were a sign that sanctions could not work, it must have been the extraordinary spectacle in Baghdad. The Iraqis have virtually no petrol and it is said that they have little water or food, yet Saddam Hussein has no intention of allowing them to deflect them from his purpose. So I fear that sanctions would never have worked and would not have worked within a timescale that we could conceivably have supported.
The hon. Lady made some comments about the war aims. As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said so well, it is remarkable that the war aims have changed so little. After all, many things have changed during the war, not least the fact that the Iraqi ambassador has consistently sought to make out that Israel is a party to the war when manifestly it is nothing of the sort. It is astounding that we have stuck to the war aims, as defined by the United Nations, so steadfastly, instead of shifting in some Machiavellian way, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and the hon. Member for Ladywood maintained that we have done.
I have an extraordinary admiration for the British forces and the allied forces as a whole. It is remarkable that they have meshed together so effectively. At the beginning of the war anyone who thought that a coalition of such diverse partners could fight together with such skill would have been thought to be a dreamer. I congratulate the commanders of the allied forces on the way in which they have made the war machine work.
There has never been a war in which an army has been so constrained or so conscientious. The idea that young men should fly aeroplanes at over 600 mph through anti-aircraft fire a short distance from the ground seeking targets that would be approved even by Greenpeace seems ludicrous. Yet that is what they have done night after night, with an astounding degree of success. Of course, they made errors from time to time. They blew up a bunker which turned out to be a shelter, although our intelligence believed that it was a command post. That is very sad and deeply to be regretted, but it is an extraordinary achievement that the allies have kept so well to military targets.
As I said in an earlier intervention, the latest reports from refugees and others leaving Iraq are that the allies have destroyed military targets and civilian targets next door have remained extraordinarily undamaged. I congratulate the allies on that.
What is more, there has never been a war which has been so meticulously and overwhelmingly covered by the media. The whole world can see day in and day out photographs of what we have done and of what we are alleged to have done. The only thing that is lacking is coverage from within Kuwait. That gives a strangely unbalanced view of what this war is about. I d o not altogether blame the media for that, but it must be constantly borne in mind by those of us who watch our television screens that we are seeing only two thirds of the picture and that the third which matters—Kuwait—is never shown because Saddam Hussein would never dream of letting it be shown.
I admire enormously—and how lucky we are to be able to admire—the dignity, courage and loyalty of our armed service families. Like almost every Member of the House, I have a Gulf family support group working in my constituency. It is made up mostly, but by no means entirely, of women. Parents and wives manage somehow to give each other support, sustain their loved ones in the field and not to complain about very much. The sort of complaints that we hear are that the post office has run out of blueys. That is an important complaint, but it does not undermine the war effort. Families realise that their loved ones have joined up to serve the political purposes of a democracy and, however frightened and anxious they are, they are very proud of what is being done. I support and admire them hugely. It is always a privilege to meet them.
As many hon. Members have said, when the war is won, we shall have to address directly the question of arms supplies. It is not an easy question. Our friends in the Gulf will instantly ask for all the amazing equipment which they have seen in such effective action. It will be enormously difficult for us, when countries can afford to buy them, to refuse to supply the latest weapons to protect those countries. There will be powerful arguments that if we arm our friends we will create stability in the Gulf.
Some of the allies in this great fight are allies only for a short while because it serves their present purposes. We must look carefully at how we re-supply the armed forces of the countries in those areas. That will not be easy. Many employees of arms companies are represented by hon. Members. For example, Opposition Members have complained, for sound reasons, about the closing of military bases in Scotland. Nevertheless, when it comes to the crunch, if we do not supply the arms, another country will be only too ready to do so. Such matters must be dealt with on a much wider basis than simply a single nation trying to achieve a commercial advantage in the short term.
We must remember that, for centuries, it has been common for countries with an advanced military capacity to sell off their second-hand, less good or obsolescent goods to other countries. But those goods are now capable of creating such damage that it is intolerable to continue selling them.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will forgive me if, in the interests of time, I do not pick up any of his remarks. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate.
In the 12 years that I have served in Parliament, the Gulf war and all that it entails is by far the most serious issue that I have had to consider. Like every other hon. Member, I have had to give much thought to the issues and implications of our decisions. I concluded that there was no course other than to support the United Nations and the actions necessary to secure the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 660 and 678.
The war was not sought by this or any other nation, but is a direct consequence of Iraq's refusal to accept the rule of international law as expressed by the United Nations. The world community was and is in no doubt about what is required to achieve peace and stability in the middle east. Iraq must unconditionally remove its forces from Kuwait. The war would never have taken place had not Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on 2 August. His action would not have resulted in this tragic war if, after that event and before 16 January, he had withdrawn from Kuwait.
The United Nations has never in its history spoken with such unequivocal authority on any international crisis—120 member states supported the resolutions and 28 are currently engaged in military action.
One of my constituents, critical of my support for the United Nations and the coalition forces, said that the war was "imperialistic and materialistic". In one sense, he is completely wrong but in another he is completely right.

Mr. Corbyn: Completely right.

Mr. Hogg: As my hon. Friend said, my constituent was completely right.
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because of oil. He aimed to secure control of more than 65 per cent. of the world's oil reserves. He wanted to control oil prices and the rate of oil extraction. If that is not imperialistic and materialistic, I do not know what is. The consequences of Saddam Hussein's action, had he succeeded, would have been extremely detrimental to the interests of the world community and not least to the working people of this country.
I respect the view of those who say that they cannot support the United Nations and the coalition forces. I agree with the argument expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to the House on 11 December that the achievement of UN objectives by comprehensive sanctions would be a notable success for sanctions and would strengthen them as an effective international instrument for use in other contexts. But if, in the end, force was necessary, force it would have to be.
Like all my colleagues, I wanted sanctions to work and should have preferred longer time to allow sanctions, the blockade and military readiness to have the maximum effect. In the event, force was used and the Labour party stands by the British troops and the coalition force.
As the war proceeds and sanctions remain in place, it becomes increasingly apparent that sanctions would have taken a very long time to be effective. One wonders whether Saddam would ever have capitulated to such action, even if Iraqi children had been starving on the


streets of Baghdad. I have never viewed sanctions as a soft option. Their consequences could be devastating for the nation and people against whom they are directed.
The Scottish National party introduced this debate and I refer to Scotland in the context of the war. I believe that the people of Scotland support the stand that has been taken in support of the United Nations. All the evidence from polls points to that conclusion, as do my soundings in my district. Scots are essentially internationalists in their outlook. They readily work abroad—indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) worked in the district that is now caught up in the conflict.
Many Scots work for international and multinational companies and understand the international dimension of economic life. The same is true of Scottish academic life and the arts. "Scotland in Europe" is a good slogan, if for no other reason than that it taps into the Scots' internationalist outlook. Because of their internationalism, the Scottish people support the United Nations and the coalition forces.
Naturally, there is a body of influential opinion opposed to the war. Although I respect that stand, it cannot be presented as reflecting Scottish opinion. The System Three opinion poll in the Glasgow Herald showed that 77 per cent. of Scots supported military action in the Gulf, while only 13 per cent. opposed it. It showed that war support was stronger among Scottish Nationalists, at 76 per cent., than among Labour supporters—74 per cent. Liberal Democrats registered, marginally, the least support at 21 per cent.
I do not doubt for a moment that the coalition forces will win the war if it is prosecuted to a conclusion. Saddam has a formidable army and war machine, which is said to be the fourth largest in the world. I recognise that such a force could be matched only by a coalition consisting of United States, European and Arab nations, and I appreciate the tensions that such a multinational force presents to the Arab people of the middle east. It means that, when the hostilities are over, tackling the peace will require great commitment and determination, just as was required to prosecute the war.
I hope that, even in the circumstances that are developing tonight, diplomatic activity will secure the unconditional withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. However, whether by diplomacy or force, we must deal with peace once the conflict is over. It would be naive to believe that the settlement of the Palestinian problem will mean an end to instability in the region. Justice demands that that issue must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, but that will not, of itself, resolve all the problems of the region. There must be a Palestinian homeland and self-determination, although it will be difficult to decide what those boundaries should be and what will be required of other nations in the region. At the same time, Israel's right to exist within secure boundaries must be established and guaranteed by international treaty. That, in itself, will not solve all the outstanding problems caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Boundaries, the economic viability of a new Palestine and the issue of Jerusalem must all be considered—the difficulties are formidable.
What I am struggling to say was best summed up in an article in The Economist published last week, which states:
The Gulf episode has killed the fashionable pre-war idea that Israel would have nothing to fear from its Arab

neighbours if only it made peace with the Palestinians. Peace with the Palestinians is a necessary condition for a stable Middle East, not a sufficient one. True stability will have to wait until democracy reaches the Arab world, so that despots no longer prop themselves up by telling their people that the road to Jerusalem, and to paradise, runs through their neighbour's country.
There are mighty forces at work that militate against the stability of the middle east. The absence of any sort of democratic tradition, with Governments run either by military regimes or hereditary rulers, hardly bodes well. It seems unlikely that such Governments can establish stability or accept a limitation on arms. Nothing that has happened in the post-second world war period suggests that such a policy is likely to commend itself. Oil riches will continue to be spent on arms—at least in some of the nations—as a first priority, with social and economic development coming a poor second. We must also recognise that nationalism remains a potent force in the region. Taken with the continuing Islamic revival and its expression in political terms, there exist sufficient ingredients in the cauldron to cause great problems in the future.
This country will be a major player in the settlement that will have to flow from the present conflict, but we cannot continue to be involved. We have already had more than our share of involvement in the middle east and, some would say, there are issues and problems that we created in our previous role. A return to stability and lasting peace must initially come from the nations of the region, in conjunction with the United Nations.
No one dealing with those problems can fail to appreciate the huge difficulties facing the United Nations in the aftermath of the war. Establishing a peace with justice will not be easy. We cannot have repeats of these terrible events, and the responsibility on our Government, the Governments of the coalition countries and the United Nations is greater than has been presented by any other world crisis since the second world war. The British people know those difficulties and understand that they must be faced. I believe that they are right to have placed their faith in the United Nations as the only mechanism to establish and build peace.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) said that anything he had to say would not diminish the Scottish National party's support for troops in the Gulf. He referred to his own extensive knowledge of the Gulf area, particularly Iraq and Kuwait. He attempted to occupy the moral high ground by casting doubt on the integrity of President Bush, the Prime Minister and the Government with regard to the aims of the United Nations forces in the Gulf.
As I read it, the SNP motion calls for an end to the conflict compatible with the United Nations resolution 660, but ignores the other 11 resolutions. The hon. Gentleman read out the other resolutions, but they do not appear in the motion.
A letter was published in the Glasgow Herald on Friday 1 February headed,
Scots troops in the Gulf".
It stated:
Sir,


The more I look at the Gulf war the more I sympathise with the intelligent anti-war attitude expressed by our partners in Europe and marvel at the arrogance of a UK Government which, under the unbalanced leadership of Margaret Thatcher rushed to commit Scottish, English and Welsh lives at the crack of the American whip and now whines after European financial support. Of course Kuwait deserves help even though only 7 per cent. of the people had a vote and the parliament had been dissolved by feudal rulers.
But why only Kuwait? What about the Kurds? Or the Baltic States? Or indeed the many other nations, including our own"—
that is, Scotland's—
seeking independence from a cynical and callous world?
I am especially concerned about the undue sacrifice expected from Scottish servicemen. According to your own correspondent, Ian Bruce, Scottish troops will form 40 per cent. of the ground assault forces. I find this figure hard to believe but, if it is only half true, then the British Army will have carried out a betrayal of Scotland equalled only in recent times by the abandonment of the 51st Highland Division at Dunkirk.
That spells out more clearly than anything else could the problems of the SNP.
The letter suggests that the British Government—or the English Government, as the SNP would put it—colluded with Hitler to ensure that his Panzers broke through the Maginot line in such a manner as to leave the Jocks stranded many miles from Dunkirk. Two members of my close family did not return from St. Valery, so I take a personal interest in these matters. There is no doubt that what has been said is a distortion of the facts. The Jocks, as always, fought gallantly, but not effectively due to weapon systems that were inadequate to deal with Hitler's Panzers. I am pleased that the Jocks in the Gulf today have the best equipment available to soldiers in the field. We should be proud of that.
A former SNP councillor, Flora Isles, said that the SNP had different policies for parts of different parts of Scotland, for different people, and no policies. That sums up the SNP's position, which has been clearly exposed tonight. The hon. Member for Govan never considered properly the fact that political control should never be extended to tactical battle decisions, which must be taken by the military commanders on the spot in the Gulf. I speak with some emotion because, as a young service man, I served in the middle east when stupid political decisions cost the lives of colleagues, and I vowed that, if I had anything to do with it, it would never happen again.
The hon. Member for Govan drew attention to the Iraqi troops near the Turkish border. Although badly mauled, the Iraqi military is still a powerful military force, capable of doing immense damage to the United Nations forces. That is why the Government are right to say, as did the Minister of State, that if there is to be a peace and ceasefire, it must include assurances on the return of prisoners of war. We do not even know whether our aircrew are prisoners because we have not been told.
Experience in the Gulf, possible United Nations demands in future and instability in the Soviet Union must mean—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is listening—that "Options for Change" will, in time, become options not for less defence expenditure but more expenditure on different weapons systems. When service personnel risk their lives in the Gulf as they are doing today, it is not the time for any of us publicly to consider or talk about possible closures of their home bases or the disbanding of their regiments.
The Scots, as always, have contributed more than their fair share to the needs of this nation at a time of distress, and they will continue to do so. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) said, if the Opposition say otherwise, they will not be reflecting the attitudes and views in Scotland.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is sad to think that we are today trying to decide whether to send our troops into Iraq. I do not know to whom some Scottish hon. Members speak about these issues, but when I speak to my constituents I get a very different picture indeed.
I do not know who wants this war. I am a great believer in the saying that there is a time for living and a time for dying. I fear that Her Majesty's Government have chosen a time for dying, not for themselves but for our troops in the middle east.
I cannot understand the hypocrisy of the Minister when he talks about the Iraqis firing Scud missiles. Let us not forget that they have been bombed every minute since the war started. Thousands of tonnes of bombs have been dropped on them, killing men, women and children. Does any hon. Member really believe in the so-called surgical instrument, the cruise missile, that, we are told, can go in and out of letter boxes? It was disgusting to see on television a general describing precisely how a cruise missile carrying 600 lbs of explosive could go down a vent shaft, where it probably annihilated hundreds of men and women working in a Ministry of Defence office in Iraq.
I did not become a Member of this place to authorise the firing of cruise missiles or the dropping of aged bombs—chemical, biological or any other type—on people. And when people talk about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of arms, let us ask who supplied him with those arms. One can look down the list of Conservative Members who have been freeloading, running back and forth to Iraq, all their journeys paid for, but who now talk about this bad man, Saddam Hussein.
When we think of the great United Nations and its Security Council, we have to think of the shower of wimps who comprise them. Those who say that our endeavours are on behalf of implementing United Nations resolutions are talking through their hats. The Americans have created this war, and let us not forget the petition that was signed by 42 million Americans.
I am worried about the Scottish troops, some of them aged only 17. Although they are not yet of an age to vote or buy a drink in a public house, they are out in the Gulf battling. We should get some of the brats out of Oxford and Cambridge and put them in the front line. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) said, "We are proud of them, the cream of the nation." I assure him that many on the Opposition Benches do not think a lot of the so-called cream of the nation. We remember them from the last world war. We are talking about people who are in need of bread and butter and others who have been denied heating allowances.
While our troops are out there fighting for the nation, what is being done here on their behalf by the Government? Ministers are hounding their mothers and fathers to pay the poll tax, even to the extreme of barbaric warrant sales. Those are the sort of people in the Government with whom we are having to deal.
I am extremely worried about the way in which people, especially the Americans, are talking about human life. People talk about other human beings as though they were talking about turkeys. When the matter was raised in Congress, it was suggested that the losses might amount to 900 tanks, 600 aircraft, 63,000 human beings and 319,000 injured. That was the estimate of losses if the war lasted six months. The cost of the war, we are told, is $500 million a day. I believe that Britain does not have that much in the pot, possibly £3 billion. It is costing our country £4 million a day. Not long ago the Minister was going cap in hand begging for more money to carry on the war.
Who are the peacemakers in this affair? I suggest that nobody fills that role. Indeed, I do not think Mr. Bush wants peace. He did not give sanctions a chance and he did not listen to the CIA. I do not believe that our Prime Minister is a wimp. Nor is Bush a wimp because, let us not forget, he was in charge of the CIA. We must also ask who gave the order for the invasion of Panama and Grenada and who arranged for the funding of the Contras and the killing of the Nicaraguans. Bush did all of that.
Our Prime Minister has not been in his present office for long, but in the streets of Scotland he is known as the butcher of 10 Downing street—[Interruption.]—and other names that I do not care to mention. He is hanging on to the coat tails of Mr. Bush. No United Nations or Security Council body has a say over when the war in the Gulf will stop. Bush has already got it all cut and dried.
We need to study British history to see where the truth lies. Whether or not people like it, finding a solution to the crisis in the middle east lies in a study of the history of British, European and United States interference in the area over the years. After the first world war, the Mesopotamian region, which was part of the Ottoman empire, though historically a remnant of the Assyrian empire, was divided by the British into two nations, Iraq and Kuwait, which were geopolitical inventions of Europeans trying to pursue economic and political gains.
The Kurdish people were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein, but those who supplied him with the weapons to do that were every bit as bad. In that respect, we are just as guilty as the Russians, the French and the Italians. We built up this turkey and now we are being asked to vote for its killing. I do not want to be any part of that killing.
I get worried when the Minister casually says, "We fear that we shall have to open up the hospitals that have been closed." We are told that 7,500 beds will be needed in Scotland and that 500 beds a day will be needed for casualties as a result of hostilities thousands of miles away. This is a capitalist war, not a war about principle—[Interruption.] It is about oil, and those who argue that it is about principle must explain why the hell it has taken 23 years to implement resolutions 242 and 238. What is the difference between implementing resolution 242 and resolution 678?
Do those who claim, as the Minister does, that we shall return Iraq to the Iraqis and Kuwait to the Kuwaitis believe that we are talking, in the latter case, about a democratic empire when in reality it is the family possession of the al-Sabah family? I doubt whether the borders about which the Minister spoke will be left intact

at the end of this war. The area has been bombed to bits. The Iraqis say that there will be an enormous holy war, a war that every hon. Member here will regret.
My party, the Scottish Labour party, is comprised of international socialists. We have brothers and sisters everywhere—in Iraq, Iran and everywhere else—and we all want peace. We want to save lives, not lose them.
The way in which the media have covered the war has been disgraceful. We see "Captain Adie" and others in uniform running all over the place. Newspapers use terms such as "the bastards of Saddam" and other gung-ho stuff. We belong to a peaceful nation and I am a member of a party that believes in peace. We respect the sanctity of human life.
I am ashamed and disgraced when I hear people asking our troops to run through the sand with rifles and tanks, firing at other human beings who are terrified for their lives. Iraqi troops are surrendering like confetti. About 500 of them surrendered because four helicopters flew over dropping bombs on them. Is that the sort of thing that the Government want? We have suffered not only in this war but in past wars because of decisions taken by the Government's forefathers, and we do not want to suffer any more. The only way for any hon. Member with sincerity and compassion to help the troops is to get them home. To hell with Saddam Hussein and the rest of them: let them get on with it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The number of hon. Members who have participated in the debate and the many others who had hoped to participate show that the Scottish National party has rendered a great service by enabling hon. Members to debate this vital issue. We felt that it was right to explore the war aims and to look beyond the war to see how we could achieve a peaceful settlement. I hope to emphasise the key points of our motion.
First, the motion mentions strong support for the troops in the Gulf. Some hon. Members seem to think that the only way to support the troops is to rant and rave and make pacifist speeches. That is not a line that I pursue. The best way to support our troops is to argue the case for diplomatic means to bring our men home as quickly as possible. My constituency contains two key RAF bases that have been involved in the crisis since early August and whose role in the war will be seen to be significant when the history of the war is written. I know about the worries of the families of service men. They ask us to send messages of support but also to do everything possible to avoid mass killings. They all want to see their families safely home, but they recognise the responsibilities of members of the armed forces.
Our motion emphasises the position of the United Nations, whose status and integrity must be upheld. As some hon. Members have said, the United Nations may be an imperfect organisation, but it is all that we have as a facility for reaching peaceful, negotiated decisions. Unfortunately, upholding the authority of the United Nations means recognising that the ultimate sanction must be used when every other possibility has been rejected. If we do not accept that, we relegate the United Nations to an organisation that is no better than the League of Nations, which was so ineffective between the two world wars.
Some hon. Members have asked why other United Nations resolutions have not been implemented. I have great sympathy for that argument because there are many resolutions that we would all like to see implemented. However, in this case the United Nations has said that it is prepared to use the ultimate sanction, and we must support it. I hope that that will lead to the United Nations becoming stronger and more effective internationally so that we can reach more negotiated settlements in future.
The motion concentrates on the issue of the war aims. Irrespective of their stance, hon. Members have been grateful for the Government's substantial clarification of that issue. That in itself makes the motion extremely worth while. Yesterday I received a letter from the Prime Minister referring specifically to the war aims. The letter states:
It is not for us, nor indeed any outsider, to decide who should rule Iraq. Neither do we seek the destruction, occupation or dismemberment of Iraq.
The Minister of State, in opening the debate, clearly reinforced that view. We welcome that, because there was genuine concern in the House and throughout the country that we were not altogether clear about the exact aims of the war. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) cited a catalogue of events that seemed to indicate slippage. I am grateful to the Government for clarifying their position.
The motion states
that no diplomatic opportunity should be lost to bring the present conflict to an end".
The world is holding its breath. Despite Saddam Hussein's belligerent speech today in Baghdad, I understand that negotiations are to occur and that Tariq Aziz has gone to Moscow, where it seems likely that he will continue discussions. Will the Government tell us exactly what the Minister of State meant when he said that there were inadequacies which would make the terms unacceptable? The House has a right to know about those inadequacies, because it seems that this afternoon the European Parliament has supported the Soviet initiative. We are told that there are inadequacies of some sort, but we have no knowledge on which to base a judgment. I hope that in his summing up the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will clarify the matter.
I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. They spoke clearly and frankly about where they stand on this key international issue. Some Conservative Members bayed at us that this was not a Scottish subject. Members of the Scottish National party are the sort of internationalists who were referred to earlier. We have a strong international perspective. SNP Members are elected in the same way as other hon. Members, and we have the right to speak out on issues that we see as issues of great concern. We have done everyone in the House a service.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): This has been an interesting debate with varied contributions from Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who opened the debate, said that Saddam Hussein bears the primary responsibility for the war, as I think that we all agree. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) said that Saddam Hussein started the war. Since the war started the allies have tried to secure a peaceful solution.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister consider that in the past 10 years the British Government lent £1 billion to the Government of Iraq, sponsored 39 trade missions there, took no action whatever over violations of human rights in Iraq and promoted arms sales at the Baghdad arms fair only a year before the war started? Is this not really a war about oil and about protecting royal families in the region?

Mr. Hamilton: We have heard those arguments from the Opposition many times. We have not sold lethal equipment to Iraq. We have thoroughly maintained that position, although others may not have done so.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that he hoped beyond hope that Saddam Hussein would see sense. The House shares that view. I would certainly support any motion that resulted in a peaceful withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait without the necessity for military action. I very much resent the accusation by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), in a noisy speech, that we relish the idea of men being killed and that we thought this would help the Government. That is a very unworthy accusation and I hope that he will take it back. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said, the statement that Saddam Hussein made today probably removed the last hope of a peaceful solution.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that virtually no tyrant or aggressor has been given so much opportunity to undo his aggression, five months before the war started and even now, whatever reservations one may have about what Moscow has proposed? He seems to have turned it down. Is not it quite clear that here is a tyrant and aggressor who is determined to stick to the occupation of Kuwait? The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred to counter-proposals. We are not interested in counter-proposals. What we are interested in is that he should leave Kuwait—no ifs, no buts and no conditions at all.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. We can be quite unequivocal about this. Saddam Hussein has been given every opportunity since last August to withdraw and he has not done so. It does not seem to make any difference how much pressure there is from the international community; he seems to be prepared to ignore it all.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? What aspect of the Soviet initiative do the Government find inadequate in terms of the opening speech that we heard from the Front Bench? What aspects of that initiative would the Government turn down?

Mr. Hamilton: We have already said that the Soviet Union has asked us to keep these proposals secret. It does not want us to reveal what the proposals are, and we are abiding by that request. If we spelt out in detail what our reservations are, we should obviously reveal the original recommendations. The fact is that they do not meet all the United Nations resolutions. Therefore, they are not adequate as they stand.
The right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale wanted some reassurances. I repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister made clear: the allies do not intend to occupy or govern Iraq or any part of it. Our actions are aimed to achieve the liberation of Kuwait.


The right hon. Gentleman was concerned about the Greenpeace report on the environmental consequences of attacks on chemical and biological tanks and so forth. We do as much research as possible into sites that are to be attacked, and we are careful to ensure that the collateral damage is kept to an absolute minimum. As my hon. and learned Friend acknowledged, no one can guarantee that bombs will not go astray. I am afraid that occasionally they do. It is always much better if wars do not start and if peaceful solutions are found.
We do not have to look any further than Iraq to see a civilian population which is held in complete disdain. Iraq is more than happy to send Scud missiles to kill people in Israel and in Saudi Arabia. Any environmental concern seems to be pretty minimal when one considers the wilful pollution of Gulf waters with oil slicks.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the removal of Saddam Hussein. As my hon. and learned Friend made clear, we would in no way grieve if Saddam Hussein were deposed. It would be a very satisfactory solution, but it is not one of our aims to remove him. The selection of a leader for Iraq must be for the Iraqi people, not for the allies.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) talked of the suffering of Palestinian people. I believe, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) does, that, in even considering the problems of the Palestinian people in parallel with the quite illegal occupation of Kuwait, she has been drawn into a trap by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein made no reference whatever to the problems of the Palestinian people when he moved into Kuwait. That was only a subsequent argument that he introduced in the face of the condemnation of the international community.

Ms. Short: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait to help the Palestinian people. What I said was that the unresolved problem of the Palestinians was the reason why the middle east is such an unstable and dangerous region. If we do not resolve it after the war, it will remain unstable.

Mr. Hamilton: There are many different reasons why the middle east is an unstable region; I do not think that the Iran-Iraq war had any bearing on the Palestinian problem either. There are many difficult and different problems in the middle east. The hon. Lady risks over-simplifying the problems if she believes that a solution to the Palestinian issue would end all the problems of the middle east. I do not think that there is anything to support that argument. Again, she argued that we should have continued sanctions. Sanctions continued for five and a half months. How much longer would she have wanted them to go on? Should we have gone on until Ramadan started, or until the weather got so hot that it would have been difficult for our troops to fight? Should we have gone on for so long that the strains on the international consensus began to show, or until it was impossible to rotate our troops, in which case we would have to start withdrawing from the area?
To advocate that we should have waited a bit longer might have meant waiting for so long that Saddam Hussein remained in Kuwait and Kuwait became annexed

to Iraq. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth recognised that we could not go on indefinitely and that action had to be taken.
The conflict has gone well so far for the allies. Allied naval forces have emasculated the Iraqi navy and we are proud of the role that Royal Navy ships have played in the van in this action. We have seen brave actions by Lynx helicopters with Sea Skua missiles. The air battle, which has been more successful than any of us could have dared hope due to the professionalism of our pilots, has now established air supremacy in the area. There have been 3,100 combat sorties by the Royal Air Force. This must be seen in terms of a force multiplier in terms of the aid that it will give to our troops on the ground should the land battle begin.
We can be very encouraged by the action we saw after the town of Khafji was relieved. When large amounts of artillery and the Iraqi armoured forces were massing in the area behind the Kuwaiti border, they were attacked thoroughly by the air forces and serious damage was done to them.
We should also take great heart from the recent helicopter attack carried out by the Americans which resulted in some 450 to 500 Iraqi prisoners of war. If that is their state of morale, we can have every hope that if it comes to a land battle it will be short.
The multi-launch rocket system and the eight-inch M110 self-propelled howitzer have both been fired in anger for the first time. There is no doubt that our troops will fight bravely if they have to. They are grateful for the support that they get from the majority of Members of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent said, the way in which the alliance of our coalition partners has held together through the action is remarkable. Our resolve has never weakened.
Saddam Hussein has promised his people, his poor Iraqi people, the mother of battles. He seems to relish a war that could only kill thousands of his countrymen, destroy his armed forces and lead inevitably to his defeat. If there has to be a ground war, we will fight it and win. I hope that the House will support the Government's amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House proceeded to a Division——

Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am eager to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but he must wear the hat and be seated.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman gives the hat a firm thump, he will find that it will open. If he then puts the hat on and remains seated, I shall willingly listen to his point of order.

Mr. Brown: (seated and covered): This is the longest-running pantomime in the west end. But one thing that I do know is that this place only gives certain individuals the right to speak. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Many people are losing their lives in the Gulf at the present time and, sadly, many more will do so in the near future, but the House deliberately


ensures that only certain people speak on the matter. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, extend today's debate so that we can speak about the reality of the issues and how to deal with them? There is a socialist answer to the problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not throw down the hat and be so contemptuous of the proceedings of the House. I hope that in future he will desist from any such behaviour. I am not prepared to listen to his point of order any longer.

The House having divided: Ayes 16, Noes 320.

Division No. 74]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Salmond, Alex


Bellotti, David
Sillars, Jim


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Fearn, Ronald
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Dick Douglas and Mr. Andrew Welsh.


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cartwright, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Allason, Rupert
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Amos, Alan
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Patrick


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Beggs, Roy
Critchley, Julian


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Curry, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Benyon, W.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brazier, Julian
Evennett, David


Bright, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brtgg &amp; Cl't's)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fishburn, John Dudley


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Dame Janet


Budgen, Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Chris
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Butterfill, John
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Franks, Cecil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Fry, Peter





Gardiner, Sir George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Maginnis, Ken


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Green way, Harry (Eating N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hague, William
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nelson, Anthony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Norris, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jack, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jackson, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Janman, Tim
Price, Sir David


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Kilfedder, James
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rost, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony






Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Ward, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Warren, Kenneth


Stokes, Sir John
Watts, John


Sumberg, David
Wells, Bowen


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tredinnick, David



Trimble, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 25.

Division No. 75]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cartwright, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Churchill, Mr


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Beggs, Roy
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Colvin, Michael


Bellotti, David
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cormack, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Couchman, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cran, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Critchley, Julian


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Day, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Devlin, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dicks, Terry


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dover, Den


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dunn, Bob


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Dykes, Hugh


Buck, Sir Antony
Eggar, Tim


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Burns, Simon
Evennett, David


Butler, Chris
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Butterfill, John
Fallon, Michael





Fearn, Ronald
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lord, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Luce. Rt Hon Sir Richard


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Maginnis. Ken


Gill, Christopher
Major. Rt Hon John


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Alastair
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Hague, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hayes, Jerry
Moss. Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Owen. Rt Hon Dr David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patnick, Irvine


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt. Rt Hon David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Janman, Tim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Charles
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shelton, Sir William


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sillars, Jim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sims, Roger


Knowles, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Ivan
Smyth. Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Soames, Hon Nicholas






Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Speller, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Squire, Robin
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wallace, James


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wells, Bowen


Stokes, Sir John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Summerson, Hugo
Whitney, Ray


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sackville.


Trimble, David



Vaughan, Sir Gerard





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Madden, Max


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Mullin, Chris


Canavan, Dennis
Nellist, Dave


Clay, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Cohen, Harry
Strang, Gavin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Dalyell, Tam
Wigley, Dafydd


Gordon, Mildred
Wray, Jimmy


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Livingstone, Ken



Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, having overwhelmingly supported the despatch of British forces to the Gulf, welcomes the affirmation by the Government that the aims of British military action are to secure the implementation of the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House to make arrangements for a statement to be made tomorrow morning in the event of the land war beginning? Today the Minister made an important statement to the effect that the Soviet proposals were not acceptable. I shall not go into the merits of it, but he said that. Since that statement is being clarified tonight and there is a possibility of the land war beginning, may I ask that a message be sent through you to the Leader of the House to ask for a statement to be made at 9.30 tomorrow morning in that event?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): No doubt the right hon. Member's comments will be conveyed to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week there was an unfortunate set of circumstances, when a most important statement was made by the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and the Government appeared to know nothing about it all day. Finally, a Minister was enticed here by points of order. I am sure that you agree that that is a most unsatisfactory way to deal with an important matter.
In the event of a statement not being made at 9.30 am, which is quite possible, may we have an undertaking, through you, from the Government that they will make a statement during tomorrow's proceedings so that we are not reduced to the unsatisfactory system of trying to raise at 2.30 pm points of order on a matter of international importance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member recognises that these are not matters for the Chair, but doubtless, as with the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), his remarks will be drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House.

Midland Metro Bill (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Question proposed, That the Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: This Bill is promoted by Centro and the West Midlands passenger transport executive and authorises the extension of the network upon which they are embarked in the midlands.

Mr. Terry Davis: rose——

Mr. Bevan: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will have long enough to speak and so I shall not give way at this stage.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to raise this matter through you on a point of order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give way and would allow me to mention this matter to him so that he would have an opportunity to explain something to the House. Since he has refused to give way, I am sorry but I must put the matter to you as a point of order. He will hear what I am saying and he may wish to comment——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I doubt that this is a matter for me. If the hon. Member wishes to dispute some point that is made in an hon. Member's speech, it is not for the Chair to arbitrate or adjudicate. Doubtless the hon. Member will get his opportunity to catch my eye to make his own arguments, including the argument of rebuttal.

Mr. Davis: It is not an argument and it has nothing to do with the content of the Bill. It is a matter of order which I wish to put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I am having to do it in this way, but it will be a point of order for the Chair.
During the debate on the carry-over motion for the Bill, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) intervened in a speech that I was making and I gave way to him, of course. He admitted to the House that he had visited Grenoble at the expense of Centro, the promoters of the Bill. I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify whether he has declared an interest, because overseas visits are supposed to be included in the Register of Members' Interests, and I do not think that that overseas visit has been declared.
The hon. Gentleman has introduced the Bill and has not declared a relevant overseas visit. Subsequently—not on the night that he introduced the Bill—he told the House that he went abroad at the expense of the organisation promoting the Bill. I understand that all overseas visits, other than those paid for by Parliament, should be declared. Other hon. Members have declared similar overseas visits to Grenoble at the expense of the passenger transport authority. As you will see, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wishes to identify that he has declared that very interest. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill has not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; that seems to be a fair point of order. Hon. Members with a direct interest in matters that are debated

in the House should of course declare it, and no doubt the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) will feel obliged to do so during his speech.

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Member for Hodge Hill is aware, I made a clear declaration to the House that I had visited Grenoble in the middle of last year at Centro's expense. I repeat that now, and it will of course be declared in the register.

Mr. Davis: rose——

Mr. Bevan: It matters not—if I might be allowed to continue—on what date the declaration is made; it will appear in the register.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to say this, but what the hon. Gentleman says is not entirely accurate. He is right in saying that he declared his interest, on 22 October, but that is not the issue in my point of order. I am saying that he introduced a Bill on 5 March 1990, seven months earlier, and, indeed, spoke again, when moving the carry-over motion, without declaring his interest. He finally admitted it during an intervention in a speech of mine.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take it if it is on the same subject.

Mr. Skinner: I have two points to make. First, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) did not declare his interest here at the appropriate time on—according to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis)—two separate occasions, although he has done so now. My second point is more serious: the hon. Gentleman did not declare his interest in the register.
Less than two years ago we went through quite a hazardous procedure in the House when the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) did not declare what was almost certainly a more substantial interest. The matter went to the appropriate Committee, and the House's time was taken up by the introduction of the necessary measures.
The issue does not relate solely to whether the hon. Gentleman's interest was declared in the House. The register allows hon. Members eight paragraphs in which to declare their interests, which apparently were not filled in this instance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Any allegations of non-compliance with our rules relating to registration and declaration of interest should be referred to the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Bevan: Of course I made the declaration to which the hon. Member for Hodge Hill refers. Let there be no innuendo suggesting that I am trying to avoid saying clearly, as I said last time we debated the matter in the House, that I have visited Grenoble—for, at the most, one or two nights; I cannot remember precisely. If I have failed to obey the rules to the letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise humbly to you now. The position will be corrected at the first possible opportunity, and I will accept whatever suggestion you care to make to enable my interest to be registered in writing, if it was not registered at the time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) expected me to comment on his remarks. I can only repeat that, if hon. Members feel that the rules regarding compliance with the register have not been satisfied, they should refer the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I hope that hon. Members will now feel that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has done the proper thing, and has explained the position adequately.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I feel that it might. help if the Bill's sponsor withdrew it, to avoid any unfortunate implications, and allowed someone else to sponsor it. That would remove any possible taint from the proceedings. It is possible that an hon. Member will complain to the Select Committee, as hon. Members are entitled to do; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) may do so himself. Before that, however, it would clarify the position beyond peradventure, as they say, if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) withdrew his sponsorship of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no obligation on the hon. Gentleman to do that.

Mr. Bevan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will continue to sponsor the Bill as I was asked to do; and I take note of what you have said.
What we have just heard is typical of the attempts that have frequently been made, first by one hon. Member and subsequently by others, to prevent the Bill from completing its stages. In this morning's Birmingham Post, the hon. Member for Hodge Hill is reported as having said last night that he would speak at length, and that he hoped that other hon. Members would support him. The writing is not just on the wall, but in the newspaper: the hon. Member for Hodge Hill will persist in his tactics to try to prevent the majority of the citizens of Birmingham and the midlands from securing the Bill's correct passage through the House, under the only procedure that can be afforded to it—which, currently, is the private Bill procedure.
Although many hon. Members may feel that the private Bill procedure is not adequate in all respects, it is the only procedure that is open to the Bill's promoters, Centro, at this stage. Even now, when we have come so far, I hope that democracy will be upheld and that the Bill will be allowed to proceed.
The Bill is partly the consequence of legislation enacted in February 1989. This Bill had its First Reading in March 1990. It went into Committee during June and July of that year, and was referred to an Opposed Private Bill Committee in October. A carry-over motion followed in October and November. Objections were made to the Bill, but only three of the original 35 petitions were referred to the Committee. I pay tribute to the excellent-Chairman and members of the Committee for their thorough scrutiny of the Bill over a period of 11 days.
As with the first Bill, this Bill will provide a beautiful form of rapid electric rail transport—fume-free and environment-friendly—which cannot exceed a speed of about 50 mph, and usually travels much more slowly. Wherever possible, disused railway lines and segmented roads are being used. It will join the new railway station at Five Ways, which I was able to bring into existence when

I chaired the West Midlands passenger transport authority, to Ashted road in Birmingham by means of an underground link. It will then continue, on the surface, to the national exhibition centre and Birmingham international airport in Solihull. It will measure 26·7 km. The Black Country route, measuring 25 km, will connect Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, passing through other areas.
Hon. Members will wish to know the capital costs involved. The money will be tied to the provision of public sector transport to bring the area up to the modern standards that obtain in other European countries and elsewhere, and will, I hope, provide us with rolling stock that will be the envy of the world. The cost will be £224 million for the Birmingham-Solihull route, and £139 million for the Black Country route. There will be about £30 million for stock on the routes and nearly £6 million for one of the diversions which the Opposed Private Bill Committee proposed and which has been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. The cost, therefore, is a substantial one, and to it must be added the cost of the land.
The network that will result from the passage of the Bill will play a most important part in reversing the decline in the use of public transport. Although it will not solve all our traffic problems, it will help them a great deal and should postpone for many more years the advent of major new highway proposals which might otherwise be required. It will certainly remove from the road a substantial number of the vehicles that contribute to the present congestion.

Mr. Skinner: A couple of weeks ago we had the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill. It was introduced by a Labour Member rather than a Tory Member. From what I could gather, its purpose was to do some of the things that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) has mentioned. Certainly public expenditure was involved. I should like to know why the hon. Gentleman was one of those people who came in on a whipped vote, a payroll vote, on private business, and took part in the exercise. A War Cabinet meeting was cancelled to get members of it to come here and vote. Was it because this Bill has been introduced by a Tory Member and the last was introduced by a Labour Member?

Mr. Bevan: In his attempt to delay consideration of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong, as he usually is. I did not vote on that Bill, and had the hon. Member bothered to check the voting list before wasting the time of the House he would have found that out. If he were to listen for a change, he would realise that that was a totally different Bill, using a totally different infrastructure which constituted a grave environmental intrusion because it was both high and large by comparison with this slim-line and excellent surplus rail venture. They are totally different. Furthermore, the high-capacity rail vehicles which are envisaged for the Metro will result—he will be pleased to hear this because he is no doubt fascinated by it all—in very low noise along the route, certainly much lower than that of buses, trains and other types of transport.

Mr. James Hill: To compare the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill, now defunct, with this excellent Midland Metro is farcical. Not only was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) not here for the


debate that night—he came in for the vote of course—but he is wrong in trying to compare a railway transport system of three miles with this excellent long-distance Metro transit. Perhaps I shall be able to make my own speech later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not about Southampton.

Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who knows what an abhorrence that scheme would have been if the Bill had come to pass, and who has come here tonight specifically to demonstrate to everyone in the Chamber his willingness to vote for this Bill. I am delighted to see among those present the hon. Member for Bolsover, even though he was not present for the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill.
This system will be much less obtrusive than the old tramway system and the wires are much less obvious. [Interruption.] It is plain that certain hon. Members are attempting to harass the proceedings—not me because they could not do that—and are making as much use as they can of interruptions from a somnolent posture.
Thirty-five petitions were originally deposited against the Bill, of which only three went to the Select Committee. The Committee met on 11 occasions in May and considered all the relevant representations made by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill and his residents, from FORSE, and other objectors.

Mr. Terry Davis: Surely the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) is aware that my constituents were not allowed to present their petition to the Committee. So how could the Committee consider their objections?

Mr. Bevan: Their objections were known on a locus standi basis. The hon. Member's constituents did not attend. Those of Forsco did, and re-routing was obtained in the constituency of the hon. Member.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken again. He is being as careless about the facts as he was about declaring his interest. The hon. Gentleman told the House a few moments ago—and fair-minded hon. Members will agree that he said it—that the Committee met on 11 occasions and considered the objections of everybody, including my constituents. That is not correct. I suspect that he has confused a company called Foseco, which is not in my constituency, with a group of residents in my constituency known as FORSE. There is a big difference between FORSE and Foseco. Foseco is a business, and it is correct to say that an amendment to route is coming forward which will benefit Foseco. But that is not in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman is being very careless. I would respect him more if he were more careful in what he said.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for Hodge Hill is correct in saying that the company is Foseco and the site of the deviation, which I had mentioned and which will cost the promoters £6 million, was near the hon. Member's constituency, if not in it. It was understood to be one of the factors which his supporters wanted to be considered.

Mr. Davis: I am hopeful that the passenger transport authority, known as Centro, will at last see sense and will discuss this Bill and the route with me as it would affect my

constituents. However, at the moment they have not made any offer which would benefit my constituents in the Bromford estate—and the hon. Gentleman will be fair enough to recognise that throughout our proceedings that is the area that I have talked about and they are the people I have sought to represent.

Mr. Bevan: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hodge Hill has intervened yet again as it will now be unnecessary for him to develop his arguments at great length, as he has given the press to understand, because presumably he has already said everything that he needs to say.
May I compliment the Select Committee. It received r j 8–9from the promoters a number of undertakings given for the benefit of one of the petitioners. In the case of the other petitioner, the Committee asked the executive to devise a new alignment which did not pass through the petitioner's site. I hope that I have put that correctly.

Mr. David Winnick: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me remind the House that we are debating whether the Bill should be considered. I hope that the debate will proceed along those lines.

Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) aware that there is much enthusiasm in my part of the world for this new form of public transport, bearing in mind the extent to which public transport has been undermined during the lifetime of the Government? We have made clear our support for the Metro system, as have the local authorities. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that there continues to be some controversy about the proposed route as it affects my constituency?

Mr. Skinner: Ah, the route.

Mr. Winnick: The route, as my hon. Friend says.
Such difficulties often arise. I am particularly concerned about a small area—I accept that it is a small area—of the memorial park in Willenhall, which, as I reminded the House on 5 March, commemorates those who served in the first world war. It is a great attraction in Willenhall.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is supposed to be an intervention. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye later if he wishes to make a speech.

Mr. Winnick: Perhaps I may conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by asking the hon. Member for Yardley whether, even at this late stage, the promoters would be willing again to consider the objections to which I have referred.

Mr. Bevan: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for his reminder about the memorial park, which he mentioned during the debate on the carry-over motion. I cannot give an undertaking now, but I shall certainly see that the matter is referred.
If the Bill is allowed to proceed, many amendments will have to be considered. I hope that that will happen and that the numerous people who support the extension of the public transport system—to whom the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred—will be afforded that opportunity.

Mr. Peter Snape: The Labour party supports the extension and promotion of this new form of public transport. Those hon. Members who have objections to raise on behalf of their constituents will do so, but as a general principle we favour this modern and updated system, which will be of great benefit to the region.
I have a personal and constituency interest in the matter. Line I would run through my constituency and through the constituencies of some of my hon. Friends who are present. I wish to put it on record that, as the Member of Parliament for West Bromwich, East, my view is that, the sooner the line is up and running—to mix my metaphors—the better.
I hope that many of the difficulties that have arisen will be resolved. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has left us in no doubt as to the depth of feeling among his constituents about the proposals. I hope that, even at this late stage, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), on behalf of Centro, will attempt to bring the parties together so that further discussions may take place. I am sure that, with a little give and take on both sides, the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill has outlined are not insurmountable.
I have never made a secret of my views about the Bromford estate, although I do not profess to know it as intimately as my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill does. I suspect that the fears of some of those on the estate are groundless, but I understand those fears and I think that if they were aired and an attempt made to find a compromise—even at this late stage—it would be more beneficial than the protracted wrangling that has taken place at each and every stage of our proceedings on the Bill so far.
I hope that the hon. Member for Yardley will take that message back to the promoters. He shakes his head. I would not wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill or to put words into his mouth, but it does not strike me as very helpful for the hon. Gentleman merely to shake his head. Surely some attempt ought to be made to bring the parties together. It has been a frequent complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill that he has had to make all the running. He has been to see Centro on various occasions, but still no satisfactory outcome has been reached.

Mr. Bevan: I have made appointments for the hon. Member for Hodge Hill to see the director of Centro to discuss these matters in depth. I went in person to ensure, if I could, that the discussion terminated in concrete proposals which would satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Regretfully, I concluded after that meeting—and after all the other meetings that have taken place between the hon. Gentleman and varous representatives of Centro—that the hon. Gentleman does not intend any accommodation to be reached.

Mr. Snape: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Perhaps a new negotiator or arbiter is needed.

Mr. Skinner: How about Tariq Aziz?

Mr. Snape: I suspect that the Iraqi Foreign Minister has more powers in embarking on his missions than the hon. Member for Yardley has.

Mr. Skinner: Do you know him?

Mr. Snape: I know the hon. Member for Yardley, which makes me express that view. Perhaps I may tentatively offer my own services as an arbiter in this matter, because it would be a great pity——

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Snape: I am not sure that it is wise, but I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Morgan: I have absolutely no interest in the west midlands economy or its transport system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in the financial or old English sense.

Mr. Skinner: He has not been to Grenoble either.

Mr. Morgan: No. I do not have that type of financial interest either.
The intransigence of the promoters of private Bills is becoming an increasing problem for all of us because they now feel that they do not have to accommodate the view of local Members whose consituents' houses, and so on, are affected. That makes the task of potential negotiators extremely difficult.

Mr. Snape: That may be so. Even though my hon. Friend does not have any great interest in transport matters in the west midlands, I must put it to him that compromises have been reached in respect of other petitioners. It is only the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill in respect of one estate—the Bromford estate—which have not yet been settled.
I give my hon. Friend the Member for Hoge Hill the undertaking that I shall try to bring the parties together again. If my hon. Friend wants me to come to the meeting and listen, I shall be delighted to do so. I plead with him not to prevent my constituents and people throughout the west midlands from enjoying the benefits of the system—if and when the Government decide to put up some money. I hope that the Minister will stop equivocating and will cough up some cash. He well knows that we are waiting to put line 1 and the associated works out to tender. Centro has been anxious to get the go-ahead from the Department and has kept officials informed at each stage. It has also done its best to answer any queries. It would not be fair at this stage to blame my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill for any delay. At least 50 per cent. of the cost will have to come from central Government, but so far we have had only elegant phrases. No doubt we shall get another dose of the same in a moment. My concluding advice is this—drop the phrases and cough up the money.

8 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) on his enthusiastic, eloquent, and very determined approach to the Bill. He is to be commended by the whole House for the way in which he presented it.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked me a specific question about line 1. We are


here concerned with line 2; the line that runs from Birmingham Snow Hill to Wolverhampton was the subject of a previous Bill. This measure makes provision for other routes which are clearly related to and will be integrated with that one. We have said that the appraisal is under way. Centro and the Department of Transport have jointly set the middle of May as the target for completion of that work. That has been agreed with the chairman of the passenger transport authority. If the appraisal turns out to be satisfactory, and if the agreement of the Treasury is forthcoming, we shall pay development grant in the coming financial year, and then consider the line for capital funding in the year beginning 1 April 1992. I cannot be clearer or fairer than that.

Mr. Terry Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is always most fair.
Is the hon. Gentleman willing, within the next few months—before a decision is taken—to visit the site that has caused so much controversy? Only one section of the two routes is causing any trouble. His hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State visited Centro a few weeks ago, and was seen on television looking at parts of the system, but he did not come to the part that is controversial. I hope that this Minister will come with me to meet my constituents so that he may understand the strength of feeling. Those people feel neglected by the Government.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that I visited the Snow Hill—Wolverhampton line several months ago. I saw it from the air and from the ground. I shall be happy to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency next time I am in Birmingham. This is a private Bill. It is not promoted by the Government, but the Government provide section 56 grant aid and credit approvals for qualifying light rail schemes.
I should like briefly to restate the Government's position on the Bill. It is traditional in the case of private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that rule. That was made clear to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who was then Minister for Public Transport, in the Second Reading debate last March.
The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to this proposed extension of the Midland Metro network. This is one of a number of light rail schemes being brought forward in our major cities. We recognise that, in appropriate circumstances, light rail can have an important role in reducing traffic congestion and in helping to promote urban regeneration. We welcome the efforts that transport planners are making to assess what light rail has to offer. Naturally, as I think the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would agree, it cannot be the ideal solution in all cases.
The Manchester Metrolink scheme now under construction, with some £50 million of Government cash grant, will be our first modern street-running system of the kind envisaged by this Bill.
It is, of course, for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are justified. An Opposed Private Bill Committee of this House has

carefully scrutinised the Bill and allowed it to proceed, with amendments. I hope, therefore, that in the conventional way the House will allow the Bill to proceed.

Mr. Terry Davis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his kind remarks. He has always taken a very fair and balanced view, and I appreciate that. He has a responsibility to speak for the Opposition on transport in general. As he made clear to the House, he also has a constituency point of view. His constituency is not affected by the route that concerns me, but it is affected by one of the other routes. He has always tried to take an overall view and, as he has made clear in public statements in Birmingham, he believes that local people should be consulted. After all, public transport is the people's transport, and their views must be taken into account. My hon. Friend has always been most willing to listen. I am grateful for his offer to act as some sort of go-between with a view to achieving a compromise, even at this late stage. For reasons that I will explain later, that will be very difficult because of the way in which Centro and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) have handled the Bill. If my hon. Friend can help to achieve a reasonable settlement of the dispute, I, for one, shall be very grateful.
My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East, for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and, I think, for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) have made it very clear, in public and in private, that they have absolutely no complaint about my efforts to represent my constituents who would be adversely affected by this scheme. They have always made it clear that, even though they differ from me—for reasons that I understand—they respect my right to represent my constituents to the best of my ability. They have no complaint whatever about the tone, content or length of the speeches that I make. They have always made it clear that they would not wish to prevent me from doing my job as a Member of Parliament.
I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to visit the constituency. That offer has affected my speech tonight, as I had not expected this Minister to take part in the debate. I thought that it would be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who recently visited the west midlands in connection with these proposals. As I said, he did not come to my constituency. That was a great pity. I assure this Minister that he will be most welcome. The residents will be grateful for the opportunity to explain why they feel so strongly. He will find that the residents of the estate have not adopted a party political point of view. In that area, this has not been a partisan matter. Indeed, the residents' association was kind enough to distribute a leaflet saying that, in its opinion, neither the local councillors nor I had sought to make political capital or to turn the issue into a partisan one. Of course, the matter will be mentioned during the election campaign. All candidates will then be able to declare their views. The residents' association made it clear that it admired the way in which the matter had been fought. Indeed, it scorned the attempt of a former Liberal, now a Conservative, to make party political capital out of the issue by misrepresenting the views of the local Labour councillors and myself. The


Minister can be assured that his discussions with my constituents will be conducted in a friendly, pleasant, non-partisan atmosphere.
The Bill has been in progress for 18 months. It is unfortunate that, over that time, the hon. Member for Yardley, even though he introduced the Bill, has not come to talk to the residents. I am sure that he has paid a quiet visit. I think that he has even been seen on the estate, but he has not actually talked to my constituents, despite the fact that they invited him more than once. I accept his criticism of last October—that he had been given very short notice. He was not being set up. These are ordinary working people who have to do their jobs during the day and their secretarial work in the evening. I accept that they did not post their letter as quickly as they might have done.
They were not trying to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. That honest invitation was made four months ago, but the hon. Gentleman has still not met my constituents. I can understand why he did not meet them in the few days between receiving a letter and the debate in the House, but we would have appreciated it if he had come to visit us.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that my visit to his constituents would have been significant with regard to the promoter's plans and intentions. Will he confirm that he and his residents' organisation known as FORSE have met the various heads of Centro on several occasions to discuss in detail many matters concerning the route and the Bill? I have minutes of those meetings with me. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those heads of Centro are the appropriate people with whom his residents should discuss the points of impact? The promoter deals with the route submissions in conjunction with the local authority. Will he confirm that he attended a meeting on 5 February during which many details were discussed with the representatives of his organisation and the heads of Centro? There were many other meetings as well.

Mr. Davis: I hope that I shall be allowed to comment on all those matters. The hon. Gentleman referred to FORSE as my organisation. It is not my organisation. I did not organise or set it up. I do not control or dominate it. It is a genuine residents' group which was formed as a result of the proposals in the Bill. FORSE stands for For Other Routes Save Estates. I should have preferred it to be called the Bromford and Firs residents group, but they wanted a catchy title so they called it FORSE. The hon. Gentleman was being careless: it is not my organisation.
The hon. Member for Yardley was right that the residents' group has attended several meetings with Centro representatives. I was present at all those meetings because I made myself available to my constituents. However, I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman would have those talks as genuine discussions and consultations.

Mr. Bevan: rose——

Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish, I will explain why I doubt that. I am giving the hon. Gentlemen credit, but he is rebuffing me and that is typical of all the proceedings on the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been present at those discussions, he would not think that my constituents had been treated fairly and that their views had been listened to. However, he was not present;

he is relying on the minutes. As I have already pointed out, the hon. Gentleman has not met my constituents. If he had met them, he would understand why they feel as they do.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will come to my constituency all the way from West Bromwich. The Minister is going to come all the way from Kettering——

Mr. Freeman: No, from Marsham street.

Mr. Davis: That is even further away than Kettering. However, the hon. Member for Yardley will not even come to my constituency from Yardley.
The hon. Member for Yardley was wrong when he said that my constituents met the heads of Centro on 5 February. I know about that because they asked me to attend that meeting and it is a good job that I did so. I can bear witness to what was said. My constituents did not meet the heads of Centro: they did not meet the director-general or the head of public relations who was on holiday. My constituents met some new people whom we had not seen before.

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davis: I am always anxious to be fair to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: Besides Mr. Hawkins, Mrs. Hawkins and Mr. Poole from FORSE and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), the following people were present at that meeting on 5 February: Mr. Ray Hughes, who is the head of Centro development; John Fallon, who is the press and public relations manager; Rod Dixon, the engineering and design manager; and Janet Kings, the principal planner. Are not they heads? Is it not a fact that the discussions included the offer to resite the football pitch to the other side of the M6, to realign the safety fencing and other issues such as park and ride, environmental impact, the extension of the Heartlands area and the Water Orton line? Many issues about infrastructure were discussed.

Mr. Davis: I do not agree that those people were heads. Mr. Fallon is a very nice man, but he does not head any Centro department. Obviously the hon. Member for Yardley and I disagree on the definition of "head". Mr. Robert J. Tarr is a head because he is the director-general.
The hon. Member for Yardley complained earlier about the length of my speeches, but his interventions and red herrings are delaying the completion of my speech.
At that meeting we did not meet the chairman of the passenger transport authority, any PTA members, the director or even the head of public relations who had arranged the meeting. I am not complaining about that, but the people present were not heads.
I was present at that meeting and I was told by the Centro representatives that we were discussing the environmental impact study. They said that that was what they wanted to talk to us about, not the route. Well, my constituents want to talk about the route. The location of a football pitch or play area is very important, but those issues are not central to the objections to the Metro.
I am always anxious to be fair to the hon. Member for Yardley. He asked me to accompany him to meet Mr. Tarr, who is the director-general of the PTA, which now calls itself Centro. I accompanied the hon. Gentleman willingly, and we met Mr. Tarr and one or two people


whom I would regard as heads, unlike the people who were present on 5 February. They included the solicitor who was handling the Bill and Mr. Parker, the head of public relations. I told those people that they had not talked properly to my constituents. As a result, Mr. Tarr said that he would arrange for discussions with my constituents about their objections to the route and about the alternative. I am sure that the hon. Member for Yardley will confirm that.
It was agreed that Centro officers would talk to my constituents about the alternative route. However, after those talks my constituents told me that they felt that those discussions had not been, to use their words, genuine. That was their opinion and they can speak for themselves. That opinion was confirmed to me by the PTA chairman who said "We are entrenched." That is the sort of phrase with which we are familiar these days, internationally. He said, "There will not be any rerouting unless Parliament does it." That is what the chairman of the PTA said in my hearing.
The hon. Member for Yardley cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that there were genuine discussions with my constituents when the chairman, the very head of the organisation, was saying, "We are not going to change anything anyway." My constituents' suspicions were reinforced and confirmed by what the chairman himself said to them in my hearing. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not attend any of those meetings. I did not expect him to, but I am sorry that, having set up those talks in what I believe was a genuine effort to achieve——

Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davis: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is interrupting me again.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman says that he spoke to the chairman of the PTA. It is upon the strategy of the passenger transport authority that Centro's plans have been made. Its directions have been followed by Centro as the promoter of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman spoke to the very head of the organisation, the chairman, who put the views clearly to him. The hon. Gentleman saw someone even greater than the director-general of Centro.

Mr. Davis: That is the point. I am sorry to belabour this issue, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped it. The man at the very top—one cannot have more of a head than that——

Mr. Bruce George: What about a bigger head?

Mr. Davis: I did not want to say that because it could be misconstrued. I do not want to engage in personal attacks on Councillor Bateman, who is not here to answer for himself. He is at the very top of the PTA. In my hearing, he made it clear that all the 11 meetings to which the hon. Member for Yardley has just referred were pointless. That is not the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East. Even the Minister is more flexible than that. At least he is willing to talk to people and to hear what they have to say. The actual words used were, "I have invited you here to have a chat." I shall return later to what people said to the chairman and

what he said to them. I do not want to destroy the order of my speech because the hon. Member for Yardley might accuse me of repetition.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Yardley has not taken the trouble to meet my constituents, and he has been careless. It is a pity that he would not give way to me at the beginning of the debate because, if he had done so, I should have been able to put to him without embarrassing him too greatly the point that I then had to make on a point of order. I was anxious to be fair to him.
After the hon. Gentleman had moved the carry-over motion on 22 October, he admitted that he had received the benefit of an overseas visit at the expense of Centro. I emphasise that that matter arose in an intervention only because the hon. Gentleman challenged me. I pointed out that I paid my own fare to Grenoble. I asked him who had paid his fare and he blurted out that it had been paid by Centro—[Interruption.] Well, the record shows it. He blurted out that his fare was paid by Centro, but he had not declared that fact before that evening or on 5 March when he introduced the Bill. He should have done so.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the problem of practices that verge on malpractice in terms of the way in which private Bill promoters get their Bills through the House. They set up a slush fund so that hon. Members who would like to visit a certain place can go there at public expense. It might be somewhere outside the country, in which case the visit should be declared in the Register of Members' Interests. It might be a place where the private Bill's promoters are intending to carry out works. They could invite any one of 650 Members of Parliament to visit that place, to do so repeatedly, and to stay overnight in an hotel. The House will have to address the problem of private Bill promoters and their slush funds at some stage if the private Bill procedure can ever hope to have a proper reputation of propriety. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Davis: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend down that route, although I have much sympathy with what he says. I do not want to cast any unnecessary aspersions on the PTA and I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I began to discuss the general procedure for private Bills. I want to stick to this Bill.
Some hon. Members have declared that they have been abroad at Centro's expense. I have no objection to that. I am not criticising the hon. Member for Yardley for having accepted Centro's offer, although it is a pity that it had to be done through a firm called Ian Greer Associates Ltd., as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East confirmed on an earlier occasion. Nevertheless, hon. Members will always be interested in certain private Bills because they may have a passionate interest in that subject or a constituency interest—they need not necessarily be a sponsor—and if they cannot afford to go to, say, Grenoble——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was right to anticipate that if he pursued his present line the Chair would reproach him. I am reproaching him.

Mr. Davis: I accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am simply anxious to acquit hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Yardley, of any imputation of dishonesty. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was


simply careless. However, it was that hon. Gentleman who impugned my honesty in our previous debate when he said in an intervention, "If I were an honest man", meaning me. I think that he regrets that now.

Mr. Bevan: At the moment, unchallenged, there is an imputation of slush fund creation by a public body so that there could be a very necessary visit. I should like the hon. Gentleman categorically to deny that there was a slush fund. However, it was either that slush fund or a different one that enabled the Select Committee on Transport also to visit Grenoble to study the railway which has been used as a model for Midland Metro and is regarded as a state-of-the-art light electric railway. Only the best is wanted in this Bill. Whether we shall eventually get it nobody knows, but there was no slush fund.

Mr. Davis: I thought that when a Select Committee went abroad, the House paid for it.

Mr. Bevan: By a fund.

Mr. Davis: But the hon. Gentleman said that it was paid for by this fund.

Mr. Bevan: By a fund.

Mr. Davis: Yes, of course, by a House of Commons fund.

Mr. Bevan: Is that a slush fund?

Mr. Davis: No, but that is not what we are discussing.

Mr. Bevan: Well, why should this fund be a slush fund?

Mr. Davis: Actually, I did not suggest that there was a slush fund. The hon. Gentleman is very touchy about this. I was simply seeking to defend him. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), "Was I or was I not defending the hon. Member for Yardley and the passenger transport authority?"

Mr. Morgan: Yes, defending him.

Mr. Davis: I do not know whether there was a slush fund. All that I know is that the invitation came from a firm with which I will not associate, which is called Ian Greer Associates Ltd.—a public relations firm which has a certain reputation. I shall say no more than that because it cannot defend itself here.
I must advise the hon. Member for Yardley that I tried to be fair to him by suggesting that he had just been careless. He should have included in the Register of Members' Interests, as many other hon. Members did, the fact that he went abroad at somebody else's expense. That is what the rules are and he forgot to do it. That is all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that we had cleared up that matter at the commencement of this evening's proceedings. I hope that we shall not go down that road again.

Mr. Davis: I refer to it only because there have been interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, including from the hon. Member for Yardley.
I am anxious to get on because the hon. Gentleman also complained that I intended to speak at length. He quoted from The Birmingham Post, which asked me, "Are you going to speak at length, Mr. Davis?", to which I replied, "Yes, I shall speak at length and for as long as it takes to put my constituents' point of view." That is only to be

expected. My hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-East and for Walsall, South recognise that. I must admit that this is taking a lot longer than I had intended. Indeed, I have not yet started my speech properly because the hon. Member for Yardley keeps interrupting to intervene. I said what I said to The Birmingham Post quite clearly and I shall, indeed, speak for as long as it takes to put my constituents' point of view. I said then that my hon. Friends have not criticised me for doing that in the past and will not do so on this occasion. I left it at that.
I turn now to why I do not think that the Bill should be considered. In both our previous debates, I have made it clear that my objection is not to the idea of light rail or rapid transit. I do not oppose that concept, nor do I oppose the Midland Metro project. Although the hon. Member for Yardley got carried away in one of his intemperate interventions in our previous debate and suggested that I was not telling the truth—a suggestion that he then retracted—my position throughout has been that, like my constituents, I do not oppose the concept. I emphasise that the residents' group, FORSE, has made it clear, to the dissatisfaction of one or two people who live on the estate, that it does not oppose the concept as such. It has said that rapid transit is a good idea, but has added, "We are not convinced that it has to have disadvantages and costs in personal terms to people living on the estate, if that can be avoided." FORSE has gone on to say, "We are not convinced that that cannot be avoided, so we want to suggest an alternative route."
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East said that the Metro system was to link Birmingham with the black country. That is correct and we are not trying to stop that link. I am talking about the route from Birmingham to Solihull, which is in the opposite direction. It goes to the east, from Five Ways to the national exhibition centre in Solihull. That route runs through my constituency and through the Bromford and the adjacent Firs estates. I shall use the name of the former estate as an abbreviation for both. I oppose only that section of the route.
My constituents and the local councillors are not satisfied that the route must take a path through the Bromford estate where people would lose the amenities that they currently have. It may seem trivial to talk about the possible effects on children's play areas, football pitches, cycle tracks, social clubs and the family and sports community centre. People feel, very strongly about such things. My constituents are concerned not only about the loss of such amenities, but about the fact that the route runs through the only green area in that part of my constituency. The estate was built in the 1960s when there was, generally speaking, system building and its subsequent problems. The residents have had to deal with damp, central heating and other problems and the council has had to spend a small fortune to repair the defects over the years.
Not far from the estate, there is a motorway and a problem with aircraft from Birmingham airport. Aircraft reach the required height just over the estate before manoeuvring to the right or left, so my constituents are at a disadvantage in many ways. Now, after 25 or 30 years, the estate is beginning to look better. The ribbon of grass—as I call it—between the houses and the motorway is precious to those people. It is used not only to exercise dogs, but for children to play and for informal family


recreation. I am told that on hot Sunday afternoons, people picnic on the grass between the houses and the motorway. All those amenities are precious because there are so few. The estate was one of the classic cases of the rush in the 1960s to build houses. I do not criticise the local councillors because they built such estates with the best motive in the world. They had to deal with the terrible housing problems in Birmingham and they went for quantity, not quality. They made mistakes, but it is easy to criticise after the event.
Over the years, the council and especially the residents have done much to make the best of what they have. The residents are very upset at the prospect of losing that—not only the people who live in the houses immediately fronting the grass area, but the whole of the estate of several hundred people.
The residents are also concerned about the visual impact of the Metro. People feel passionately about the trees which were planted by local people and which now screen the ugliness of the motorway. Many were planted by children from the local school and, apparently, families know which is their tree and feel that it belongs to them. Although I was rather sceptical about that at first, I was convinced by the people's feelings. It is very much their wood—it is more of a copse than a wood, but it is how they see it that matters. They are depressed at the idea of losing any of those trees. A line of trees was planted to screen the motorway, Fort Dunlop and the derelict industrial area on the other side of the motorway. It can be seen through the arches because the motorway is elevated at that point, but it is now screened by growing trees. They must be 20 years old and they are tremendously important to the people who live in houses immediately adjacent to the motorway. Those houses have big picture windows, so the people are distressed about the visual impact.
When the hon. Member for Yardley spoke for the promoters of the Bill, he said that the Metro system would bring major benefits to the environment. My constituents do not agree. They believe that the section of route that passes by them will detract from their environment and make it worse rather than better. They would naturally prefer, if possible, to make arrangements for the Metro system to be re-routed slightly to reduce or eliminate its visual impact on their homes.
We should bear it in mind that Centro has not yet been able to tell us where it will put the stops on the route. That is important because the stops are rather long, unlike bus stops, and there will be platforms. Centro is also unable to say what the gantries that hold the cable to provide the power will look like, so people are naturally worried. Nobody knows whether they will have a concrete gantry which would be very visible just a few metres away from the living room window. People know that vehicles will pass by every five minutes in each direction. That means, in effect, that vehicles will run past their picture windows every two and a half minutes. That is some picture.
People are concerned not only about the visual impact, but about the noise, which is an extremely important aspect of the environment. People are becoming increasingly concerned about noise levels.

Mr. Cryer: As my hon. Friend knows, I take an interest in the Bill and in the way in which he has followed up his constituents' problems with the correct concern and zeal.

The reverse of the argument is that the development of public transport and light railways is a useful asset for any community. Are there routes which would be less intrusive, but which would benefit the community without the consequences that he has outlined so graphically?

Mr. Davis: Yes, is the short answer. There are several alternatives, one of which has been suggested by my constituents. I think that it was rejected too cavalierly with an explanation that I do not accept, but I shall deal with that later. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) would stay to hear it.
My constituents are not against public transport and I emphasis that they are not against the Metro as such. They are certainly not against it running from Five Ways in the centre of Birmingham with a stop at the new convention centre, which is about to be opened in the centre of Birmingham, together with hotels. They are not trying to stop the Metro running to the NEC, to Birmingham international airport, or to Birmingham international railway station. They see the logic and know that it would be beneficial to the economy of Birmingham, but they say that the system can be built without causing them any disadvantage. That is a moderate point of view.

Mr. Bevan: If that is the case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to tell us why he tabled amendments to kill off line 2 completely and to ensure that it could not be constructed.

Mr. Davis: I was saving my remarks for my speech to move the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that because I was thinking the same. We should have a more orderly debate if we got on to the amendments so that he can speak to them.

Mr. Davis: I want to put it on the record that I am not afraid to discuss these matters. It is at your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall not answer the point. I am trying to be helpful, but I am having difficulty getting on with my speech, thanks to the hon. Member for Yardley. At the right time, I shall explain why there is nothing inconsistent in what I have said about not opposing the Metro while opposing one section of the route. My amendments were tabled in such a way on the advice of the Clerk to ensure that they were in order. I will leave it at that for the moment.
I was explaining why my constituents feel so concerned about the route proposed in the Bill. Their second concern is noise. The hon. Member for Yardley told the House that the vehicles that will be used will be
quieter than the 1940s trams or even the Blackpool trams".—[Official Report, 5 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 645.]
That statement leaves a great deal to be desired because those trams were noisy. I can just about remember the 1940s trams and I have seen and been on the Blackpool trams. It is nice to go on them and it is part of going to Blackpool for the Labour party conference. However, I would not want such a tram running as close to my home as the Metro will run to the homes of some of my constituents. The noise of those trams is definitely excessive. The hon. Member for Yardley says that the


noise will not he as bad as that. That is little comfort to those who do not have trams running in front of their homes at present.
The hon. Member for Yardley also said that the noise of the rolling stock will be less intrusive than that of a tram because it will have a "higher frequency". I am not clear whether he meant "frequency" in the sense that it applies to sound or the frequency of vehicles. Trams will run in each direction every five minutes, which means that a vehicle will go past every two and a half minutes. One could say that there will be a constant hum. That will not please people who live in the area.
The hon. Member for Yardley then told the House that, even if people's environment was adversely affected by noise, there would be noise insulation grants. He said on 5 March 1990 that they would be payable under a scheme similar to that in operation for highways. I want to make two points about that. First, the hon. Gentleman admits that there will be noise of a level sufficiently high to merit noise insulation grants. Secondly, those of us who have experience of noise insulation grants in our constituencies will know that the level required to qualify for that grant is high. I hear constant complaints from many of my constituents who believe that they should be entitled to noise insulation grants because of Birmingham airport. That is one of the biggest problems in my constituency. I think that those people should be entitled to grants and that is why I am introducing a private Member's Bill to help not only my constituents, but people all over the country who suffer from such noise.
The existing noise insulation schemes for aircraft and highways are not good enough. The people who live on the Bromford estate have personal experience of noise insulation schemes. Nobody on that estate gets a noise insulation grant for the effect of aircraft that turn just as they reach the estates. However, many people on the estate have obtained noise insulation grants as a result of the motorway. Ten years ago, we had a tremendous problem because we discovered that because of the way in which the scheme had been introduced, people got a noise insulation grant only if the noise from the motorway qualified them for such a grant. There was no allowance for the cumulative effect.
I was not here at the time, so I can say how grateful I was to Ministers in the Labour Government in the 1970s. One of them decided that the old system was wrong and that the grants should take cumulative noise into account. It was decided that families should not be told, "You do not qualify although you have a terrible amount of noise, because the amount of noise from the motorway is not enough, even though, if we took it all together, you would qualify." People had a terrible problem, but they were being told by the council that it could not pay noise insulation grants under the law. A Minister at the Department of Transport took a sensible decision on behalf of my constituents living on the Bromford estate and decided that the scheme should take account of cumulative noise.
However, the change applied only to noise from highways. The issue now is my constituents, who will not qualify for noise insulation grants because of the Metro alone, but who will suffer because the incremental noise—that noise taken with that of local traffic—puts them above the level. They will not get the grant because the single source does not generate enough noise. They also hear noise from the railway, which is not far away. Some

people have asked why the Metro does not use some of the disused railway line, which is a valid point. My constituents have had bitter and disappointing experiences with noise insulation schemes. They are nervous about anything that may add to the noise.
I always try to be fair to those with whom I disagree. Councillor Bateman, the chairman of the passenger transport authority, said that he thought that my constituents had a horrendous problem at present without the Metro. Why introduce it? Why make a horrendous situation worse by putting the Metro in front of people's homes?
The hon. Member for Yardley said that the Metro would be "whisper-quiet". He said that the system in Grenoble was "whisper-quiet". That is not the opinion of the environmental services department of Birmingham city council. That department employs people whose objectivity I do not question. I have found them excellent officers who say it the way it is. They have looked at the Metro scheme—they are conscious that the council's policy is to build the Metro—and they say that on their calculations—I stress that they are calculations—118 homes on the Bromford estate would be affected to the extent to which they would qualify for noise insulation grants. One can understand the attitude of my constituents, who say, "My goodness, if 118 homes are going to qualify for noise insulation as a result of the Metro and we know that those noise levels are totally inadequate, what will it mean for those of us who do not qualify for noise insulation?" Naturally, they are nervous about it, and I do not blame them.
I have told my constituents that I have been to Grenoble and that the Metro equivalent there is quieter than some other forms of transport. I readily agree with that, and I am not trying to exaggerate the case or to give my constituents unnecessary cause for alarm. The Metro in Grenoble is called the Tram and it is not "whisper-quiet". It is certainly quieter than other forms of transport. There is no doubt that the Tram has brought about a reduction in noise. The people there live in flats above shops or, in some cases, in blocks where the ground floor does not have any flats. It is not like our system. The ground floors contain garages and other facilities. The people living on the higher floors do not suffer from worse noise because the Tram has replaced existing traffic. That is the big difference.
It is not proposed that the Metro will use a disused railway line. We are not talking about a route that will replace existing traffic on the roads. We are talking about a section of the route that will run through green grassland—an area where the loudest noise at present is from dogs. The road is an estate road and a cul-de-sac. No one goes along it except the residents, the milkman and the postman, who does not usually use a car. No bus goes along, so there is no means of transport to be replaced. The Metro will be additional transport. People say, "We are going to get a high level of noise. We are not like the residents in Grenoble. Having heard your description, Mr. Davis, we can understand why people in Grenoble would say that it was an improvement. It is not an improvement to us. It will be a deterioration. The noise will add to all the other noise and it will go close to our houses." The Metro will go about 10 metres from a block of flats and close to people who already suffer from noise from the motorway. I agree that what has been done in Grenoble is good, but,


contrary to the constant references by the hon. Member for Yardley to Grenoble, it is not comparable with what will happen on this section of the route.
My constituents also feel aggrieved, angry and upset about the consultation, and they are angry about the way in which they were treated. Some time ago Mr. Tan, who has already been mentioned, wrote to a local councillor who lives in my constituency but does not represent a ward in it. The councillor was worried about a previous rapid transit proposal. At the time Mr. Tarr was secretary of the passenger transport authority. He still does the same job but his title has changed and he is now director general. When he was secretary of the PTA, he wrote to the councillor, who has passed the letter on to me. Mr. Tarr promised that there would be full consultation before any further schemes which affected my constituency were introduced. That promise was not kept.
Whenever I put it to the passenger transport authority, I am told that it was the job of the city council to consult. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East impressed me with his description of the thorough consultation that took place in Wolverhampton. It is important to involve people. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East told my constituents in a letter, people should be involved and should feel that they are being consulted at an early stage. They should feel that their fears are being considered, their points taken into account and their suggestions listened to. They should feel that someone is trying to meet their objections in order to achieve a satisfactory solution without putting the scheme in jeopardy.
The residents' group in my constituency has made it clear from the beginning that its motive was to have its views taken into account. I respect it for that. The residents have made it clear that they did not seek to sabotage the project. They merely wanted their legitimate objections and interests to be taken into account. They felt that there was not consultation until a late stage, and they were right.
In my hearing, the chief executive of Birmingham city council told other Members of Parliament from Birmingham that he would ensure that it was done better next time. He now knows that it cannot be left to Centro. The chief executive was worried about the way in which the people of Birmingham were treated, even if Centro were not. On that occasion, he said to me, "You see, Mr. Davis, we have learned from that experience." I am genuinely glad that no one else in Birmingham will have problems, but I do not see why my constituents should be sacrificed. I do not see why the city council should learn the lesson—the lesson that Centro refused to learn—at the expense of my constituents.
When I talk to the PTA, it shelters behind the city council. When I talk to the chief executive of the city council, he shelters behind Centro and says that it was its job to consult. The only thing that has changed is that at least the chief executive has been big enough to say that, although it was Centro's responsibility, he accepts that it is not good enough and that it must not happen again. He gave a personal promise to Birmingham Members of Parliament that in future there would be proper consultation and he has done so. He is consulting Members of Parliament about future routes which affect Birmingham. I am pleased about that.
Centro did not consult and the city council did not consult my constituents. A decision was taken about the scheme and it was launched here at the House. My hon. Friends and Conservative Members were invited. The hon. Member for Yardley may have sponsored it, but I cannot remember. In a room off Westminster Hall there was a presentation and a major public relations exercise. It was not consultation. It was held to tell us how marvellous the scheme would be.
No one thought of going to the people affected and asking them what they thought of the scheme and whether they had any points to make about it so that their objections could be taken into account at an early stage. It was a fait accompli. They were told, "You can oppose it if you like, but this is what we intend to do. Your Member of Parliament, your councillors and your Members of the European Parliament may oppose it, but we intend to impose it." That was how my constituents saw the way in which they were treated.
Before the Bill was presented to the House, my constituents were told that they had a choice. The route could go down either Bromford drive or through the grassed area next to Chillingholme road, Wanderer walk and Douglas house. My constituents said, "We shall not choose. We know what you are about: you are trying to divide us and rule us. You are trying to set one group of residents against another. You are trying to make us say `Not in our backyard, impose it on the other lot, not us."
My constituents refused to be divided. They could see through it. Many of them are trade unionists who work in industry. They have more savvy than that and they can see a problem when it is coming towards them. They said, "We are going to stand together. We do not see why we should sacrifice our neighbours." The people in Bromford drive said, "We do not see why we should save ourselves at the expense of people in the other road." The people in the other road said exactly the same thing. I was delighted that they stood together throughout. The people in Bromford drive are still worried about the scheme even though they feel safe because the route will not be imposed on them. They feel that the people in the other road have a justified grievance and they are upset at the way in which their neighbours have been treated. But, as I shall explain later, Centro has exploited that position, too.
Centro tried to divide and rule, but it did not work. It gave my constituents a choice between having an arm amputated or a leg amputated. It did not work. My constituents said that they did not want either. They did not think that anyone should have the Metro passing in front of their homes. They suggested an alternative route. I shall return to that in a moment.
I give credit to Centro for undertaking what it called consultation, even though I would not call it that. The hon. Member for Yardley calls it consultation. I have read his remarks to the House carefully. Tonight he did not make a great deal about consultation but previously he has done so. He told the House that in general the project was the subject of widespread consultation several years ago in 1989. He said that 300 videos lasting six minutes each were sent to residents' associations. But they were not sent to residents' associations in my area. He said that videos were sent to community groups. I have not yet met a community group in my constituency which has had the benefit of a video. The hon. Gentleman said that videos were sent to local political parties. I can speak only for the Labour party. Neither at constituency nor branch level has


the Labour party received one of the videos. I do not know where they went, but they did not come to the political party which represents the people who will be affected by the scheme.
The hon. Member for Yardley told the House that 95 presentations were made. He claimed that Centro had consulted through those presentations. Who benefited from those presentations and who and what were the 95 groups? The hon. Gentleman said that they were business groups, chambers of commerce, rotary clubs—there is no rotary club on the Bromford estate—and breakfast clubs. We do not have breakfast clubs in my constituency. He left out supper clubs—we do not have many of those either. He said that presentations were made to local groups and—this is the crunch—Confederation of British Industry groups. No CBI group represents the Bromford estate. The people there live on what they earn in the factories; they are not CBI members.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been 17 exhibitions at conferences and transport events. However, they did not benefit my constituents, who were not consulted. He also said that many leaflets had been distributed on the first route, but he could say only that a much smaller number of leaflets had been distributed on the route that affects my constituents. He said that 14,000 leaflets, of which 10,000 were for the area outside the city centre, had been distributed within 1 km of the proposed route. I know that that is true because I received one through my letterbox, although I do not think that I live within 1 km of the proposed route. However, those leaflets would not have allowed my own residents' group to express an opinion one way or the other because we live too far away to use the Metro.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that council officers and Centro arranged 13 consultation venues attended by 1,400 members of the public, but they were not consultation venues. People came to caravans—I did so myself—and saw part of a video. The set-up was rather like the caravan that was parked at the Palace of Westminster a few months ago in connection with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.
He said that the exhibition at the Bromford neighbourhood office lasted for three and a half weeks, but its aim was to inform people, not to consult them. He was correct to say that public meetings were organised, and that 239 people attended them. I attended several of them and, at one meeting alone, counted between 300 and 400 people who were all opposed to the scheme, except for a couple of members of the passenger transport authority. I did not identify them then as they might have been subjected to verbal abuse from my constituents, and I shall not identify them now.
The hon. Member for Yardley said that there had been 26 meetings with businesses and business groups. As I have already explained, those would have concerned the route through the Bromford estate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that, by discussing routes, the hon. Gentleman is going on to the first group of amendments. I am finding it a little difficult to relate what he is now saying about routes to the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Davis: Thank you for the guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply explaining that my constituents are

upset. They oppose the Bill because they were not consulted by its proposers. I shall not go into the details of one route versus another as that is the subject of detailed amendments.
My constituents were not consulted by the organisation that should have consulted them. Centro got off on the wrong foot at an early stage. It would have behaved differently, had it taken advice from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, who sent a letter to my constituents on behalf of the Labour party saying that it believed in full consultation with local people on such matters. Centro's only defence is that the city council supported the route that was proposed after consultation. But it was opposed by every councillor in my constituency—not only Labour councillors but the Conservative one. They all criticised the lack of consultation and time, and the way in which Centro was behaving.
How can we say that the committee procedure is democratic when it all took place in secret? Not even the local councillors representing my constituents were consulted. The locally elected representatives did not even know about it until Members of Parliament were given a presentation in a room off Westminster Hall and I telephoned them to break the news that the city council had been here with Centro to present those routes. That is an incredible story, and it shows that the democratic process has not been properly observed. The die had been cast without councillors having been consulted.
As a result of that lack of consultation, all the local councillors and almost everyone who lives in the district is opposed to that section of the route. A small minority says that it does not want Metro at any price, anywhere. A poll conducted in the area—not by me, the residents' association or local councillors, but by Centro and Birmingham city council—showed that the overwhelming majority of people were opposed to the route. In a secret ballot, 10 per cent. voted for it and 90 per cent. against. The result could not be much more overwhelming. The detailed analysis of those figures was not reported even to the councillors involved in the subsequent stages, who were on those committees. Quite a few of the 10 per cent. who were in favour of it said that they would not use it. So they were in favour of it for other people—to get them off the roads—but not for themselves. Not surprisingly, it was opposed by myself, by the local Labour and Conservative councillors and by the local MEP—in other words, by all the political parties in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Yardley disagreed with me about that when we last debated the matter. He said that he had private information from the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate to the effect that what I had said was not correct. I can only reply that, in my hearing, the Conservative councillor for the area told his constituents that he agreed with me on this issue—he was careful to say "on this issue"—that he supported me on it, that he agreed with my opposition and with my objections. Not only did he associate himself with those objections, but I believe that he seconded some of our motions on the subject at the meetings in question.
In addition, the Conservative candidate at the latest local elections declared his opposition. He tried to pretend that the local councillors and I had not opposed it, but the local people soon put him right about that.
As a result of the inadequate consultation that took place—it would be an exaggeration to say that there had been a total lack of consultation—the city council decided


to put the route along one of the two alternatives that it had put forward, so that it would affect the houses in the way that I have described. I have not gone into all the details of the other route involved because it would be unreasonable of me to do so.
My constituents said, "We will not be persuaded in this way. We will not sit back and have the scheme imposed on us. We have looked at it and we are not against the Metro. We do not want to oppose the project and the Bill, but the route should and could be amended in such a way as not to affect any homes." There is no question of our trying to move the route so that it will affect the homes of other people——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now anticipating amendments standing in his name that have been selected for debate.

Mr. Davis: I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall discard that part of my speech.
My constituents say, "We accept not only the concept but the thinking behind it." My constituents are more impressed by the arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends than by those of the hon. Member for Yardley. After all, in the debates on the Bill the hon. Member for Yardley talked about the scheme being modern, up to date and necessary to raise the image of the passenger transport area. My constituents are more impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friends about the Metro regenerating derelict industrial areas and providing jobs. None of us wants to stand in the way of that.
When the hon. Member for Yardley concedes that it would make a major contribution to regenerating derelict and economically depressed areas, my constituents say that that is fine, and indeed that sentiment is expressed in the statement that hon. Members have received urging them to consider the Bill. I will not read the whole of that statement, issued on behalf of the promoter, in support of consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee, but it says in paragraph 6:
It is also expected that the development of the metro network will make a major contribution to the regeneration of derelict or economically depressed areas and bring major benefits in the improvement of the environment.
The first part of that sentence is welcome and endorsed by my constituents. But the estate that I have been describing is not a derelict or economically depressed area—certainly not in that sense, although many people there are unemployed—and it is not a derelict or industrial wasteland.
My constituents agree that the Metro should run through the Heartlands area, as it is called, in the city of Birmingham, as that is an old industrial area. I am sure that were I to ask all the councillors in my constituency about that, they would agree with the desirable aim of regenerating derelict and economically depressed areas.
But that is not what we are discussing. The section of the route with which I am concerned does not come into that category. After the city centre bit of the route, it goes through a derelict industrial area—the scheme is definitely to be welcomed there—but it then proceeds through an ordinary residential area, where it is not to be welcomed.
The promoter's statement says that the system will bring major benefits through the improvement of the environment. My constituents do not accept that and say

that it will bring a major—or at least a minor—deterioration in the environment. The statement says that the use of electric power should assist in the reduction of local pollution from exhaust fumes. That is not true because the system will not replace any traffic running through the estate. Part of the statement harks back to another point that I made—that the vehicles intended for the Metro will result in lower noise levels than those experienced from buses and trains. But it will not replace buses and trains on that section of the route. It may replace some buses and trains, but I am not sure that my hon. Friends would want that because that would simply be to substitute one form of public transport for another. I shall return to that. One has to make a value judgment about which form of public transport is best, and I am not convinced that the Metro is superior to buses. I emphasise again that I see advantages in light rail rapid transit systems for getting people quickly to and from the national exhibition centre, but that does not have to be done by imposing extra noise on people who live in the estate that I have described.
For all those reasons, my constituents were unhappy and wanted an alternative route. I shall not describe that in detail now because we may come to it later, although that may be difficult for technical reasons that I shall explain. My constituents submitted an alternative which met the objectives in the promoter's statement and would have benefited and helped to regenerate a derelict industrial area. That derelict area has just been added to the Heartlands. Therefore, all the arguments that apply to the Heartlands apply to the area which my constituents suggest could benefit from this modern system of transport.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. I know that he is speaking strongly on behalf of his constituents, but his arguments about different routes and the like would be much more relevant to the amendments that have been selected for debate later.

Mr. Davis: The trouble is that my amendment has not been selected for debate. I quite understand that and I would not challenge Mr. Speaker's selection. The Clerk has explained why the amendment, which is in line with what my constituents have asked for, cannot be debated. I shall not go into the merits of my amendments, which are different from what my constituents suggest. There is no identity between my amendments and the argument that I am advancing. My amendments recognise that what my constituents suggest cannot be accepted by the House at this late stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering a technical motion on whether the Bill should be considered. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that in developing his arguments at length, as he is perfectly entitled to do, he must address himself to the fairly technical proceedings in which we are engaged.

Mr. Davis: My argument is that we should not consider this Bill because the alternative was rejected by the passenger transport authority. I am not allowed to promote that route in the House. The passenger transport authority did not properly and fairly consider the alternative. If it had, I would not oppose the Bill. The passenger transport authority did not reject the proposal


out of hand. It gave three reasons why my constituents' suggestion could not be put into effect. I will not describe those in detail because I do not want to trespass on your kindness and generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The three reasons were briefly that, first, the Centro officers who were mentioned—described as heads by the hon. Member for Yardley, but who I consider to be junior, little heads—said it was not physically possible. That was disproved. They have had to drop that because when I asked the city engineer if it was physically possible he said that it was, so that argument cannot be advanced, and is knocked on the head.
The second argument which has been made——

Mr. Bevan: rose——

Mr. Davis: I shall give way later. The hon. Gentleman has interrupted quite often and it was he who complained about the length of my speech. If this goes on I shall not have time to finish it—[ Interruption] Does the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) wish to intervene, because I would always give way to him? No, he does not.
The second reason given for rejecting my constituents' suggestion was that it was estimated to cost £16·5 million. That estimate was subsequently reduced by Centro to £12·5 million, but it then admitted under questioning that this section of the route in the Bill to which we are objecting would cost £2·7 million. If £2·7 million is deducted from £12·5 million, that, in round figures, is an extra £10 million which my constituents wanted to spend.
The hon. Member for Yardley told the House on 22 October in an intervention in my speech that I got it wrong. He said that the cost of the route, as put forward in the Bill, is £6 million. I am happy to be corrected. The Centro officers have told me that it costs £2·7 million, but the hon. Gentleman, to whom I must defer because he introduced the Bill in the House, said that it would cost £6 million. We have been told that the cost of the alternative, which I shall not describe in detail, would be £12·5 million. But the hon. Member for Yardley says that this section in the Bill would cost £6 million. It follows, does it not, that the extra cost is £6·5 million? Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, make a special note of that because it is important that my constituents were asking for an amendment which would cost only £6·5 million. That compares with the total cost of £273 million. That is the hon. Member for Yardley's latest figure, as of October, for the cost of the whole route, not the whole network.

Mr. Bevan: I must correct the hon. Gentleman, who consistently seeks to belittle the status of the heads of Centro. He has tried to downgrade them to junior heads. He has tried to say that they are not correctly represented and he is as accurate on that as he is on many other matters. He is quite wrong. Ray Hughes is the head of Metro Development—I repeat that and I should like the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge it. John Fallon is the press and public relations manager—the head, not the junior head. Ray Dixon is the engineering design manager—the head—and Janet Kings is the principal planner. They are not junior heads. They are not also-rans. They are not middle executives. They are as described—the heads of the department.

Mr. Davis: I thought that the hon. Member for Yardley was going to help me with more figures and tell me that the

cost of the alternative was even lower than we had been told before and that the cost of the Bill was higher than we had been told before. He has not denied the figures that I have given.
On the question of heads, if it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman and stop him interrupting me, I will concede that Centro is a many-headed body. It is a positive hydra. It has lots and lots of heads. They are all heads. They are all talking heads.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have worked in really big organisations. I was called a manager for many years, but I never described myself as a head. The people working with me would have been amazed if I had thought that I was a head of the company. I was certainly a manager, with many of those titles, but I never presumed to call myself a head of the company. I would have accepted the description of executive. I was a company executive at one stage. That is how I described myself. Later I had "manager" after my name and described myself as a manager, a perfectly respectable title. There is nothing wrong with being a manager. I have been one. I am a member of the managers' trade union. But that does not make one a head of an organisation.
I do not know how many heads the Government have, but nobody would suggest that the very generous Minister for Public Transport is a head of the Government. I do not think that he would even describe himself as a head of the Department. Like me, he is a modest man. He is an important person, but he is not the head of the Department of Transport, any more than I was the head of any of the organisations for which I worked. At least, I do not think that I was. However, let us not pursue that diversion any further.
The hon. Member for Yardley is trying to divert us from the cost. That cannot be denied. I am quoting the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave the House. He told the House that the cost of what is popularly known as the southern route is £6 million, compared with the cost of what is known locally as the northern route of £12·5 million. I got that figure from one of the people whom the hon. Gentleman calls a head of the organisation, so it cannot be contradicted. I am happy to have that person called the head.
The difference between £12·5 million and £6 million is £6·5 million, which is a very important figure for two reasons. It is £6·5 million compared with a total estimate for the route—not just the section in my constituency, but the route from Birmingham to Solihull—of £273 million, so we are talking about a little over 2 per cent. of the total cost.
The third reason why Centro rejected the alternative, which we cannot discuss this evening but which is relevant, is that they said that there would be a lower ridership if the route suggested by my constituents were adopted. They said that fewer people would use Metro. We asked them for figures, and they said that fewer people would use it because fewer people lived near that route. That is certainly true. That is why my constituents suggested it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has just said that there is a certain matter which we cannot discuss this evening. He now appears to be proceeding to discuss it.

Mr. Davis: It is important because of something that the hon. Member for Yardley said. I will ask you in a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you agree.
Centro told us that between 1,900 and 2,200 people would use the route described in the Bill from Birmingham to Solihull every day. Let me explain immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to go into detail about how I think some of my amendments would keep that ridership, because that would be wrong and would delay progress, and I do not want to do that. Centro said that the passenger total was an important figure. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to remember that, because I shall come back to it when I move the first group of amendments.
The promoters said that if we did not choose their scheme, or something close to it, ridership would be reduced to between 500 and 800 per day. We asked the promoters how the figures were made up. My constituents were told—in my hearing—that the figure of between 1,900 and 2,200 passengers a day, on the route laid down by the Bill, was made up of 75 per cent. who would transfer to the Metro from buses, 15 per cent. being new passengers who would not travel between Birmingham and Solihull if it were not for the Metro, and 10 per cent. being people who previously travelled by car. Let us take special note of those figures, which have been cited several times.
The hon. Member for Yardley said today that the route described in the Bill would take a considerable number of vehicles off the road. He nods his head, so he must agree with me. Does it not follow, therefore, that the vehicles which will be taken off the road if the Bill is enacted will be buses, because three-quarters of the people using the Metro will have transferred from buses? On previous occasions, however, the hon. Member for Yardley said that the Bill was intended to relieve traffic congestion, that it would ensure increased use of the public transport network and would bring about environmental improvements. I shall not discuss those improvements because I have already done so at length.
My hon. Friends and I want to provide better public transport. We want people to use the public transport network, and so do my constituents. They are adamant about it. There is considerable criticism in my constituency and in the west midlands about the present inadequate public transport service, so of course we are in favour of improvements to it. But that is not what the Bill is about, because 75 per cent. of the passengers will have transferred from the existing public transport network and not from cars.
Let us consider the promoter's statement in support of consideration of the Bill as amended in Committee. It says:
It is expected that the Metro network will play an important role in reversing the decline in the use of public transport. It will not of itself solve all traffic problems on roads but will assist to this end. It is also likely to defer for several years the need for some highway improvements or traffic control measures for the relief of congestion on roads.
The hon. Member for Yardley said something similar when he moved the motion for consideration of the Bill today, but I do not think that he is completely accurate. In my view, the promoter's statement is not correct. There are many reasons why we should have the Metro, and I shall give reasons why we are in favour of the project as a whole—I have already touched on some of them—but it is not true to say that it will reverse the decline in the use of public transport. The hon. Gentleman is right when he

says that the Bill will not solve all the traffic problems—I suppose that that is a concession—and will not relieve congestion on the roads, because everyone knows that that is caused by motor cars and not by buses. If passengers transfer from buses instead of cars, the impact on congestion will be slight. The hon. Member for Yardley ought to concede that argument because it is the inevitable logic of the arithmetic supplied by the people whom he describes as the "heads" of Centro.
On an earlier occasion, the hon. Member for Yardley also said that car use has increased, and asked us to support the Bill because buses and cars would be provided with free car parks, enabling passengers to use trains following the Midland Metro Act 1989. I see no logic in that argument; there is no connection between the 1989 Act and increased car use, although there is a connection between that Act and the Bill that we are discussing. The 1989 Act introduced the first of these routes, which I believe will run from Birmingham to Wolverhampton. I did not oppose it, although the hon. Member for Yardley keeps trying unfairly and inaccurately to suggest that I did. I simply cannot get it into the hon. Gentleman's head that I opposed neither the 1989 Act nor the concept that it embodied; there was no reason for me to do so. None the less, he is wrong to suggest that the Act provided benefits that it did not provide—and, indeed, has been unable to provide, as the route has not been built, and whether it is ever built will depend on the Department of Transport.
Even if it is built, the route will not help the buses. As it has not yet been built, it has provided no car parks, and there are no proposals for them in either the Act or this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that such a large network implies the existence of a free car park, but there is no such thing, as I know to my cost—or, rather, I do not, because I have been given a pass, but that is because I am a Member of Parliament. As far as I know, no one else is given free parking facilities, unless they are granted to employees of Birmingham station.

Mr. Bevan: I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman. I have taken advice on the matter, and I am told that the promoters of the Bill expect 10 per cent. of people to abandon their motor cars for the Metro. They expect perhaps 15 per cent. more traffic to be generated. I have also been told that between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. eventually transfer from cars to the Metro in other parts of Europe where the system has been installed. The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of all this. Fewer people will use cars, and the reduction in the number of car users will increase as time goes on.

Mr. Davis: What the hon. Gentleman has not told us is how long we must wait for that transfer. We have not been told before about an eventual transfer of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. My constituents have not heard anything about it when they have talked to the people described by the hon. Gentleman as heads of Centro. He has given us some fresh information today, but he has not told us whether the transfer will happen next year, next century, or later—and he does not look as though he intends to do so. I suspect that he will not do so because he does not know.

Mr. Bevan: I have made it clear that the system, once established, will prove attractive and popular enough to win over more car users than it will at the beginning. I expect the initial 10 per cent. figure to rise to the


continental norm of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent., which it may do at any point after the system has been installed and allowed to mature. I do not want to be a crystal ball gazer, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman does—I certaintly wish he would look at the crystal ball rather than at the mud.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman invites me to look into a crystal ball. I am not sure that my hon. Friends want me to engage in such speculation, nor do I think that it would be fair to the promoter. The point is that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to give us a date. He talks of what will happen when the system has "matured". That is typical of the predictions of Conservative Members—they are always telling us that things will get better, but they never say when. Unemployment, for instance, is always going to come down, but we never hear when it will do so, and, in our experience, it generally goes up.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis: If my hon. Friend will allow me to finish what I am saying, I will give way to him a little later. He has been very patient, and I much appreciate his courtesy.
The hon. Member for Yardley introduced the Bill with plenty of dash. Clearly he did not know the statistics that I read out, which is in itself instructive. After I had read them out, he simply repeated them as though he were giving the House new information.
I told the House that the people whom the hon. Member calls the heads of Centro told my constituents that 75 per cent. of the passengers would be transferred from buses, 15 per cent. would be new traffic and 10 per cent. would be from cars. The hon. Gentleman then rushed from the Chamber, checked, came back and read out the same figures. So we have confirmed that. The only difference between us is that he says that the figure will eventually be 20 to 40 per cent. I do not know, and I am not looking into a crystal ball. Centro has said that it will be 75 per cent. from buses, 15 per cent. new traffic and 10 per cent. transferred from cars. That will happen immediately, which has not been denied, so we shall be able to monitor it. It is not a prediction for some unspecified time in the future when none of us—certainly not the hon. Member for Yardley—will be here anyway.

Mr. Turner: I am not anxious to intervene because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill wants to make the case that he has been making, substantially on behalf of his constituents, but I wanted to ask him about the figures that we are discussing. Those of us who support the Metro firmly believe that it will make a real contribution to the relief of traffic congestion in the black country and the west midlands. My hon. Friend mentioned 10 per cent. I have just finished serving on the Committee on the Road Traffic Bill. The number of cars running across the roads of the west midlands and the black country grows year by year, causing major congestion. If we could move 10 per cent. of our car-owning population to the Metro, it would make a tremendous contribution. So even if it is no more that 10 per cent. of the hundreds of thousands of cars to begin with, it is right for us to believe that the number will grow as we get the route fully developed, and that will take even more cars off the road. If we can get 10 per cent. of car

owners on to the Metro, it will make a majestic contribution to solving the road traffic problems of the west midlands.

Mr. Davis: There is no difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East and me, he will be delighted to learn. I agree completely with him. If we could get 10 per cent. on to the Metro it would make a majestic, to use his adjective, or perhaps one should say a major improvement in congestion, but I do not think that this Bill would do it. I understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm and I share it, but I think that he has let himself be carried away slightly. I ask him to listen again to what I said. I did not say that 10 per cent. of car owners will transfer to the Metro, as he seems to think I did. I said that 10 per cent. of the passengers on the Metro would be people who had previously used cars. There is a very big difference. I did not suggest that 75 per cent. of bus passengers would transfer to the Metro, but that 75 per cent. of predicted passengers on the Metro would be people who had previously travelled by bus.
Only 10 per cent. of passengers on the Metro, according to Centro's own figures, would be people who had previously travelled by car. If it were 10 per cent. of car owners, as my hon. Friend would like, that would be an incredible improvement; it really would bring about a major reduction in congestion in the west midlands. I wish I could see that day. There are ways, but I would not be in order if I proceeded to discuss how we could get 10 per cent. of car owners out of their cars and on to public transport. I have ideas about that, and I think that my hon. Friend has very good ideas about that, too. I have just one thing to say to him. I went—I do not think that he was able to be there, although my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East was and made a very good intervention—to a very interesting presentation recently. I thought more of it than my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East did. I think that it would be fair to say that he was more critical than I was. I was very enthusiastic about it. The presentation was made by West Midlands Travel, whose representatives were talking about how we could increase the number of people using buses and achieve a major shift from car-driving to bus-using in the conurbation. The presentation was very exciting. I shall not pursue that subject, however, as that is not what we are discussing this evening.
I want to return to the most important reasons why we should not consider the Bill further. The most important point—I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Yardley wishes to divert us from it—arises from what the hon. Gentleman told the House nearly a year ago. The hon. Gentleman is not even listening, and that is the whole point—Centro will not listen, and its representative in the House will not listen.
A year ago, the hon. Gentleman told the House that if we gave the Bill a Second Reading, it would proceed to its Committee stage and be fully examined. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, Centro made sure that that did not happen. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said today, Centro made sure that my constituents and other residents could not present their objections to the Committee. With the exception of the hon. Member for Yardley, every hon. Member who spoke in support of the Bill urged and advised Centro to act differently. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East, for


Walsall, North for Walsall, South—and, I think, even my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East—advised Centro not to use the obscure parliamentary procedure of objecting to the locus standi of residents. The hon. Member for Yardley, who I know gets carried away, misled the House when he said that all the objections were considered by the Committee whose report we are considering. He said that only three petitions went to the Committee. He is right, but of those three petitions, two were not from residents and one put only part of the case of one of the five residents' groups which originally petitioned against the Bill. That was significant, as I shall explain in a moment. The residents of Bromford estate were not allowed to put their case to the Committee, despite what had been said previously.

Mr. Snape: In my role as assistant or arbiter in these matters, perhaps in fairness to Centro I should explain that when my hon. Friend and I and other hon. Members criticised its decision not to allow my hon. Friend's constituents to present their petition, Centro told me that it had done so because it had received advice from the authorities of the House to the effect that it should interpret the rules as strictly as possible. I paraphrase, but that was basically the story that Centro told me after a similar exchange at an early stage in our proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Davis: That is the story that Centro will have told my hon. Friend, but it is not wholly correct. I will explain what Centro meant by "the authorities of the House". The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure drew attention to the locus standi rules, but that does not absolve Centro. Centro told me that it was the fault of Sherwood and Company, the parliamentary agents, and that it had put the Bill in the hands of Sherwood and Company and not in the hands of the hon. Member for Yardley. According to Centro, Sherwood and Company took the decision to challenge the locus standi of my constituents. I was interested to discover, following my research, that only two bodies had used that obscure procedure—Centro and British Rail. Those are the bodies that have tried to stifle the opinions of ordinary people and used the procedure to prevent them from being heard. The implications are tremendous, and to hon. Members they are horrifying. The procedure did not have to be used. No promoter of any other private Bill has tried to stop people presenting their views to the Committee set up for that purpose.

Mr. George: My hon. Friend has made his case very strongly over the last hour and three quarters. He is very concerned that people should be allowed to express their views. Having listened to him patiently, I should be exceedingly grateful if he would allow other Members to have their say before the debate ends at 10 o'clock.

Mr. Davis: I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South to speak before me. I suspected that the hon. Member for Yardley would interrupt—[interruption.]—as indeed he has. I was anxious to give my hon. Friend a chance to speak. [Interruption.] We do not have to finish—the Bill can be carried forward to another date. If we are forced to vote on a closure motion, I shall vote to allow my hon. Friend to have his say.
I shall not be distracted from making the point that I have to make—that Centro prevented my constituents from presenting their case to the Committee. But that is not all. Earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you asked me about routes. The alternative route suggested by my constituents cannot be considered on the Floor of the House. Centro employed Queen's counsel to prevent ordinary working people from explaining their objections. As a result, the Committee was prevented from considering those objections, and the House is prevented from considering and voting on what my constituents suggest. In addition, I am advised that, because of the actions of Centro, it will be impossible for Members of another place to consider that alternative. I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to the reasons that were given, which are very technical and complicated.
It is important to note that there has been another development. Earlier, there was a reference to Mr. Tarr, the director general of Centro. Recently, Mr. Tarr went to a meeting to discuss another route—a route in Coventry—to which people had objected. As I have no desire to interfere in other Members' constituencies, I was not present, but I am told that Mr. Tarr explained to the people of Coventry that their views could be heard by the Committee. A constituent of mine, who was present, tells me that he asked, "In that case, why did you prevent the people of Birmingham from having their views considered by the Committee?" He was not given an answer.

Mr. Snape: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. I have just been reading about the meeting to which he refers. The press cuttings describe that part of Coventry as a yuppie stronghold. I do not know whether that is true, but I am sure that such a description does not fit the portion of my right hon. Friend's constituency to which he refers.

Mr. Davis: Certainly not—and the constituent to whom I have referred certainly could not be regarded as a yuppie. As secretary of the residents group, he was prevented from explaining the alternative route that my constituents wished to suggest. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the attitude adopted by Centro towards yuppies in Coventry is different from that adopted towards the people of the Bromford estate. That would be outrageous.
The Committee considered two petitions. I have here a copy of the notes that the Chairman was using when he explained the Committee's decisions. We heard that there were three petitions but one of them was withdrawn. In the case of Foseco, the Committee decided to ask the promoter to devise a new route which would not pass through the site of the factory. Foseco was a business, of course—not a group of residents—and it managed to get to the Committee to persuade it that Centro had behaved so badly that there should be a new route.

Mr. Bevan: For the sake of accuracy, if the hon. Gentleman has read the papers he must agree that that decision was taken because of the sensitivity of the instruments used in the process. The diversion was agreed for the special reason that it would have been very difficult to move those instruments.

Mr. Davis: That is an interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman concedes that that action was taken only because of the petition to the Select Committee. Centro had not intended to do anything about Foseco's sensitive


instruments until the company explained to the Select Committee why its case was so important. That is the point—Centro prevented my constituents from explaining why they were sensitive.
The hon. Member for Yardley has made much of the sensitive instruments. I care, perhaps more than he does, about the sensitivity of ordinary people. Centro has prevented ordinary people, residents and people whose only investment is in their homes, from explaining their arguments to the Select Committee. Centro knew that that would prevent me from putting a detailed case on my constituents' behalf to the House at this late stage—[Interruption.] I have taken advice from the Clerks about this and they doubt whether my constituents will be able to present an alternative in the other place. That is a direct result of Centro's actions, which are endorsed by the hon. Member for Yardley—the only hon. Member to have condoned Centro's actions.
This point is important because another group managed to get to the Select Committee. The CARE residents group from Chelmsley Wood, which is not in my constituency, presented half its objections. The Chairman of the Select Committee said:
So far as the CARE residents are concerned we have listened most diligently to their case. We were not, however, convinced by their argument that the route should not pass through their area. Nevertheless"—
this is the key point—
we hope to be able to ameliorate the effects of the Bill on the local residents and to this end we seek a number of undertakings from the Promoters".
Five undertakings are then listed. As a result of CARE's presenting half its case, the people whom it represents have benefited from five undertakings from Centro. However, those undertakings had to be extracted from Centro. My constituents could not get any undertakings. Sherwood and Company is employed by Centro, and it represents Centro just as the hon. Member for Yardley represents Centro. Those people should be ashamed because they have stopped ordinary people from having their views heard by the Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Yardley referred to my earlier comments about the residents, meeting with the chairman of the PTA. I was there and I noted that he said:
We have drawn our battle plans and are absolutely entrenched.

Mr. George: We have heard that before.

Mr. Davis: We certainly have. The chairman went on:
There is no chance of re-routing, not since the Bill was put in Parliament.
The hon. Member for Yardley has said that my constituents have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with heads of Centro. However, the chairman of Centro—the "top head"—has said that there is no chance of re-routing since the Bill entered Parliament.
I want to make a special point about the figures to which I am referring. The cost of the proposal from my constituents is £6·5 million. However, the amendment which appears in the promoter's statement today will cost £6 million. One organisation has managed to have its petition heard by the Select Committee and there is an amendment which will cost an additional £6 million. My constituents, however, were thwarted, obstructed and stifled—they could not present their petition to the Select

Committee for an amendment that would have cost £6·5 million. That is unfair and undemocratic, and it is why we should not allow the Bill to be considered today.
I repeat that my constituents and I are not opposed to the concept of Metro—just to one small section of the route. We believe that a compromise could have been achieved, whereby my constituents would not have been affected and the Metro would have been allowed to proceed from Birmingham to Solihull. According to the chairman, it is Centro that refused to talk to my constituents, in good faith—and it is Centro that prevented my constituents from putting their case to the Select Committee. It should therefore not be allowed to take the Bill any further today because that is not fair. Centro should be told that it has not behaved properly.
I do not want to stop the route which goes through Walsall. I understand the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South to support that route and I shall not do anything to stop it. So far as I am concerned, that route can go ahead.

Mr. George: My hon. Friend is vetoing it.

Mr. Davis: No, I am not vetoing it. Will my hon.Friend say why he thinks that I am doing that? If my hon. Friend were to rise, I should be pleased to hear his point of view.

Mr. George: I am grateful for the chance to intervene, but I should have much preferred 15 minutes to explain my case. My hon. Friend accuses Centro of preventing free speech, but he has fallen into the trap of doing exactly the same thing.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is mistaken. He has been a Member of the House longer than I have and he should know that I am not stopping him speaking. I say this in all comradeship and friendship. I am not stopping my hon. Friend speaking.

Mr. George: My hon. Friend has done just that.

Mr. Davis: No, my hon. Friend has mistaken the procedures of the House. We do not have to vote today. We can go forward and resume the debate. My hon. Friend can then have more than 15 minutes. I should like him to speak. That is why I asked him if he would like to speak before me. I offered to give way before I even started——

Mr. Bevan: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 9.

Division No. 76]
[9.56 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Amos, Alan
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Bellotti, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Goodlad, Alastair


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patnick, Irvine


Grist, Ian
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hague, William
Powell. Ray (Ogmore)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Ruddock, Joan


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Harris, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Haynes, Frank
Short, Clare


Hill, James
Snape, Peter


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stern, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stevens, Lewis


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Janman, Tim
Summerson, Hugo


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thorne, Neil


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Turner, Dennis


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Waller, Gary


Lawrence, Ivan
Watts, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Maples, John
Wilson, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Winnick, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Michael, Alun



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Neubert, Sir Michael
Mr. Roger King and Mr. Bruce George.


Nicholls, Patrick





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Nellist, Dave


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don



Gordon, Mildred
Tellers for the Noes:


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Mr. Terry Davis and Mr. Bob Cryer.


Hood, Jimmy



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question.)

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 28 February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

AUDIT OF PAYMENTS TO RETURNING OFFICERS (No. 2)

'(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 shall be amended as follows.

(2) After section 29 there shall be inserted

"(29A) Where any payments are made to a Returning Officer under section 29 of this Act for charges in respect of services properly rendered or expenses properly incurred for or in connection with a Parliamentary election then any such payment relating to a service or expense of any specified description for which no maximum recoverable amount has been specified by the Treasury under subsection (3) of section 29 of this Act shall be audited by the National Audit Office and a report of the audit including details of the payments made shall be presented to the House of Commons.".'—[Dr. Marek.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As a result of the preceding vote, I fear that if hon. Members speak at length on Government business, the Whips will have to do some telephoning around to make sure that they get to bed at a reasonable hour. However, the Bill is not very contentious. I hope that the Government will see some sense in the new clauses and amendments which we have tabled and which we shall debate. If the Government are willing to help, I have no intention of keeping the House a moment longer than is necessary.
New clause 2 is a scrutiny clause to ensure that the House can be satisfied that any expenses and charges paid to returning officers are properly audited. The Bill removes the maximum that can be paid under certain headings to acting returning officers and returning officers for parliamentary elections. Where the maximum is not available, the House must have some form of scrutiny to check that money which has been spent has been spent reasonably. We made some progress on that in Committee. I congratulate the Government because it is clear that if any hon. Member wishes to put down a question relating to his or a nearby constituency about what was spent at a parliamentary election, the Treasury is happy to give the answer under the precise headings given in the regulations detailing expenses.
However, we need to know more—scrutiny is only the first part. The House will want to know that the sums have been audited and are reasonable expenses or charges. There is a general duty on the National Audit Office to examine anything spent from the Consolidated Fund. I do not know in how much detail the National Audit Office examines the accounts of acting returning officers and returning officers. It may examine them closely, but I doubt it. I think it plucks out one account and examines it. That is a well-known strategem which may work. But there is no harm in spending time examining in detail accounts rendered by acting returning officers as general elections do not happen very frequently. In the past 10 years we have had elections about every four years.
I shall give some reasons why the accounts should be rendered. The Government supplied every Committee member with examples of the highest and lowest expenditure for each sub-head at the 1987 general election. The list is not exhaustive and I shall list the details provided. Under heading B5, returning officers' travelling overnight subsistence expenses can be claimed. The highest claim of £264·58 was made by the acting returning officer at Cirencester and Tewkesbury. No claims were made from Harlow.
10.15 pm
I imagine that, in some constituencies, acting returning officers would need to have overnight subsistence and travelling expenses but not, surely, in Cirencester and Tewkesbury. That does not mean that I think the claim was improper—I do not know. I might have expected it from a large constituency such as Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, but where the constituency is compact, I raise my eyebrows at such a figure. Why should the claim for Cirencester and Tewkesbury be £264·58 when no money is spent in Harlow?
Section B6 provides for presiding officers' and poll clerks' subsistence expenses. The highest figure in the 1987 election was in the constituency of Tatton, where the Consolidated Fund was debited £2,756·25. But in Preston constituency, which is not far away, no claim was made against the Consolidated Fund. Does that mean that the acting returning officer was not looking after his staff and not providing them with subsistence expenses so that they had to bring their own sandwiches, whereas in Tatton Harrods hampers and bottles of champagne were delivered? I do not know. I am merely asking the question, which is not one into which I or any hon. Member would specifically want to inquire. However, it should be considered by the National Audit Office, and the new clause seeks to provide for that.
For clerical assistants' subsistence expenses, the highest claim came from Tottenham—£707·15. No claim was made in Gelding. For printing and providing ballot papers, the claim in Berkshire, East was £2,780·70. In Copeland it was only £609·50. That difference might be explained by different methods of printing, or perhaps Copeland has its own printing press whereas Berkshire, East has not. An explanation should be given, or at least we should be satisfied that the National Audit Office has gone into the matter accurately and that, in its view, the figures for Berkshire, East and Copeland are acceptable. I do not know whether the NAO looks into the figures or simply picks a few at random from the 650 constituencies.
Printing and providing poll cards in Stroud cost £3,803 whereas in Fylde it cost only £101·1. While the constituencies are not greatly different in size, that was a huge differential in costs and claims made against the Consolidated Fund.
For printing notices about the election, in Staffordshire, South-East it cost £2,744·34, whereas in Canterbury one might think that the returning officer did not want his constituents to know about the elections because he claimed only £56. For renting rooms for electoral purposes, the cost in Hornsey and Wood Green was £6,709·15 whereas in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale the claim was only £536·61.
The cost of adapting and fitting rooms in Hornsey and Wood Green was £27,067·94, whereas Banbury claimed only £50. One might have thought that Hornsey and

Wood Green would have built some new classrooms on the strength of the Consolidated Fund or at least redone the local committee chambers. I would hope that that figure was spotted by the NAO and certified as being reasonable.
I repeat that I am not casting doubts on the reasonableness of any of the figures. I hope that the Economic Secretary can assure us that, when the figures appear high, questions are asked to ensure that they are reasonable.
For repairing and providing ballot boxes, the claim was £1,984·30 in Falmouth and Camborne and nil in Gelding.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain the relevance of Gelding as opposed to Gedling?

Dr. Marek: I am referring to Gelding, not Gedling.

Mr. Arnold: If the hon. Gentleman feels that Gelding is so important, will he say where it is?

Dr. Marek: I dare say it is somewhere in England. Being a Welsh Member, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not knowing precisely where it is. If it turns out to be Gedling, he will have to address his strictures to the Economic Secretary because I am reading from a Treasury paper. Should it be Gedling—I still do not know where it is, though it must be somewhere in the south-east of England—I compliment it on making a nil claim for the second time.
It was stated in Committee that the claim in Slough for transporting ballot boxes and ballot papers was £4,079·86, while at the other end of the scale, in Alyn and Deeside, it was £1·27. What happened there? Did the returning officer tell the presiding officers at the polling stations, "You must pack up the ballot boxes when you have finished with them?"

Sir William Clark: Really!

Dr. Marek: These are important matters. I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), who has taken part in many Finance Bill debates, would not wish to gloss over significant variations in figures and would want to know why such differences occurred.
Slough spent £4,079·86, whereas Alyn and Deeside spent £1·27. Fylde spent £573·38 on stamping instruments, but Calder Valley spent £2·47. In Halton, no charge for copies of the electoral register was made against the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Harwich £140 was spent. We should not capriciously debit the Consolidated Fund. If it is debited, it should be for a good purpose. Finally. miscellaneous expenses——

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is this final?

Dr. Marek: It is the final matter in the list, but it is not the end of my speech.
Slough had miscellaneous expenses of £9,656·83, whereas Halton spent £22·42. It seems that some constituencies carefully husband their resources, but I do not suggest that they should do so at the expense of providing comfortable working conditions for staff and convenience for the electors. I have not been to Slough, but perhaps it is a dangerous place and it may be necessary to engage taxis to take staff home at night. Plainly, Alyn and


Deeside is not a dangerous place because the returning officer there feels that there is no risk in transporting ballot boxes.
There are wide variations in the list, and they cannot be explained by saying that constituencies are diverse. There must be another explanation; and if there is, it must be unusual and must relate to circumstances that arise at a particular time. The National Audit Office should look at individual expenses to make sure that they are reasonable. [ Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has just entered the Chamber, so I now have some support.
The clause is tightly drawn because we do not want to put the National Audit Office under great pressure. It asks that the National Audit Office should look at any payments
relating to a service or expense of any specified description for which no maximum recoverable amount has been specified by the Treasury under subsection (3) of section 29 of this Act … "—
that is, the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill makes changes to the 1983 Act and the new clause is sensible and sober. It does not ask for much, and I look forward to the Government's acceptance of it.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made an interesting speech. I cannot explain all the differences in the expenses that he outlined. He mentioned transport costs. I think that in Alyn and Deeside the ballot boxes must have been taken on the bus; and, clearly, in urban constituencies some people are not willing to work late at night unless taxis are provided to take them home. The fitting out of election rooms often occurs because local authorities have become increasingly reluctant to disrupt schools for a whole day. That means that other premises have to be found, rented and fitted out.
The present system of checking expenses is that no payment can be made from the Consolidated Fund without the approval of the National Audit Office and the Treasury. That is a statutory requirement. The National Audit Office also audits the Consolidated Fund. We think that that scrutiny is adequate.
If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would cause considerable administrative problems. Fewer than 50 per cent. of the expenditure headings would have maxima attached to them, meaning that about 20 expenditure headings would be subject to the procedure set out in this clause, multiplied by 650 constituencies. We are talking about a lot of specific checks and information.
The Government's view is that it would be expensive to administer, involving a lot of extra work, which would be difficult to justify, and the publishing of much information which, I suspect, eventually, nobody would read. Additionally, there would be a delay of between one and two years. As there is a general election only every four or five years, the work on checking those expenses and details is spread out over a year or two, and the information, if it were published, would necessarily be published somewhat late.
I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman in Committee that, should any hon. Member wish to know the details of the expenditure in any constituency, this

could be achieved by tabling a parliamentary question. The hon. Gentleman did that in respect of his own constituency.
If the functions were transferred under this Bill from the Treasury to the Home Departments, which is a possibility envisaged by clause 1(4) of the Bill, the system would change slightly; payments under these regulations would be administered by the Home Departments, so what would be transferred from the Consolidated Fund would be blocks of money rather than payments of specific headings of expense. Those could be transferred only with the approval of the National Audit Office and the Treasury, but individual payments to constituencies would be made by the Home Departments concerned which would be responsible for checking the individual payments, subject to later audit by the NAO. This is the usual system of public expenditure control.
The National Audit Office is responsible to Parliament for producing accounts for these Departments and for the Consolidated Fund. The Public Accounts Committee could look into these activities if it wanted to.
I hope that I have succeeded in persuading the House that adding this clause to the Bill would cause administrative delays, and would serve no useful purpose and that existing scrutiny is adequate.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Question on the new clause was put twice. On the first occasion only aye was shouted, so why was the Question put again?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not follow the loud example of Opposition Members by shouting. I said no.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That dispute had better be resolved by hon. Members.

Clause 1

CHARGES FOR RETURNING OFFICERS' SERVICES AND EXPENSES

Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 13, at end add
'but subject to the condition that any fees paid to any Returning Officer or Acting Returning Officer for conducting a combined poll will be no higher than what would have been the higher of the individual fees paid had the elections not been combined'.
The amendment seeks to achieve greater fairness. Hon. Members will know that acting returning officers and returning officers receive a specified fee for conducting parliamentary and general elections. The fee for conducting parliamentary elections is about £1,000 and the acting returning officer in an average constituency receives about £1,100. For European elections the fee is much higher. Statutory instrument 995 on the representation of the people, which came into force on 13 June 1989, shows that for conducting a European parliamentary constituency election a returning officer receives at least £6,760, to which various emoluments are added. Returning officers at European elections would perhaps receive about £7,500.
Returning officers have a fully inclusive salary from their local authorities, and I do not think that they forgo any of that at any stage. On 23 January I asked the Home Secretary
whether for the 1987 general election any chief executive of a local authority (a) refused appointment as an acting returning officer or (b) took unpaid leave from their authority in order to carry out the function of an acting returning officer.
The Minister of State, Home Office, replied:
Chief executives of local authorities in England and Wales who are acting returning officers are not directly appointed to that office: they have a statutory responsibility to carry out the duties of acting returning officers by virtue of the fact that they are electoral registration officers appointed by a district or London borough council.
Because they are appointed electoral registration officers, they automatically become acting returning officers. The Minister went on to say:
We are not aware of any chief executive who took unpaid leave in order to carry out the duties of acting returning officer at the last general election."—[Official Report, 23 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 185.]
However, it is clear that there are constituencies where, if one is not an acting returning officer or returning officer but a presiding officer or poll clerk, one's pay is docked for the day because a poll clerk receives the princely sum of £50 or so and a presiding officer receives, I think, £84.
That does not seem to be fair. If people are paid an extra fee, so be it, although I am not sure that I am convinced of the rightness of that, but I do not see why, if there is a combined poll, that fee should be further increased. Schedule 2 of the statutory instrument relates to the scale of maximum charges in respect of services rendered and expenses incurred by returning officers for specified functions at combined polls. Where the returning officer conducts a parliamentary election on the same day as a European parliamentary election, the fee is £217. That is just the fee, but there are disbursements in addition. I do not think that there can be an argument for paying that sum, although it is small.
I am glad that the Minister agreed in Committee to consider again combined polls and fees paid. I hope that he has done so. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman said in Committee that he would return to the question. What he suggests is that, when two polls are conducted on the same day, the returning officer should receive only the higher of the two fees. We believe that the returning officer should receive more than the higher fee but less than the total of the two combined. There is more work involved in running a combined poll, but obviously less than in running two separate polls. The returning officer has more complicated arrangements to make for polling stations, counting ballots and the co-ordination and liaison of two polls being conducted at the same time on the same day in the same polling stations.
There are considerable complications in deciding exactly how the fees should be arranged in the circumstances of a combined poll. For instance, a returning officer might be the returning officer in both elections or he might be the returning officer in only one election.
The fees paid to returning officers in local government elections are set and paid not by the Government, but by local authorities. In some cases they may be incorporated in the returning officer's salary. The duties may be part of

his contract. They are more usually reimbursed with an additional and separate fee. The fees are agreed informally by local authorities. Most local authorities pay according to the scale that they have agreed.
There is the inter-action of three sets of fees—parliamentary, European and local elections fees—together with the different combinations of returning officers' duties. The same person could be returning officer in the parliamentary and the European elections, or the returning officer in only one. In the case of the parliamentary election, the returning officer could be returning officer for more than one parliamentary election within the same Euro-constituency or the same local authority.
We recognise the concern over the matter. Large fees are involved. It is clear that people should not get two fees. The hon. Gentleman's probing has thrown up anomalies in the regulations. There are no regulations which deal with parliamentary elections being combined with local elections. When the new regulations are introduced, we will deal with the problem. I cannot say exactly how we will do so, but we will make sure that a returning officer receives an appropriate amount more than the higher fee, but considerably less than both fees together.
In the case of a Euro-election, I am afraid that the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not make the provision which I have described as being the Government's policy. They allow for both fees to be paid, with the £217 in addition. That is a mistake. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for illuminating the mistake which we will put right. Those regulations will also be amended to make sure that practice is in line with policy, which would be that a sum appropriately in excess of the higher fee would be paid, but on no account would both fees combined be paid. On absolutely no account would a supplement in excess of both fees be paid.
I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Marek: I am glad to have been of some service to the Treasury. What the Minister said has been illuminating. There are, indeed, no regulations about parliamentary elections combined with local elections. What the Minister has said cheers me up. I think that we will get our financial business right as a result. It shows that the debate has been worthwhile.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Dr. Marek: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
`(3A) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted—
(6) No superannuation contributions will be required to be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert
`(3A) For subsection (6) there shall be substituted—
(6) No superannuation contributions shall be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section as part of a returning officer's charges at a parliamentary election and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.".'.

Dr. Marek: These amendments deal with superannuation. The House will know that payments made to acting returning officers and to returning officers are superannuable. I shall not repeat our arguments in Committee, but general concern was expressed there about this practice for fees for elections. Conservative Members pointed out that the pensions of returning officers who retired after a spate of elections would be increased, while the pensions of returning officers who retired perhaps after four or five years without an election, or with only one election, would not be increased. It was felt that that was inherently unfair, and that there was an element of chance when an acting returning officer retired.
I would go further, as I do not think that such payments should be superannuable. The claim would again be against the Consolidated Fund. Returning officers have a good salary—as they should—and are well paid for the job that they do. Clearly, as they are appointed electoral registration officers and necessarily become acting returning officers, it could be said that the latter duties should be part of their duties on behalf of the local authority and that they should carry them out for nothing.
That is not the position and the history is somewhat different. However, it is unnecessary for any fees to be superannuable. It causes a lot of administration and introduces an element of chance. We could well do without it and I recommend to the Economic Secretary that the Treasury should save its money and keep the Consolidated Fund in a healthy surplus.
The two amendments differ slightly. The first states that:
No superannuation contributions will be required to be paid by a local authority in respect of any person",
giving the option to the local authority, if it so wished, to pay a superannuable contribution to the fee. Nevertheless, the amendment also states that
no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.
It is a permissive amendment, but it protects the Consolidated Fund from any depredations by way of superannuation contributions.
Amendment No. 2 is a little more strict and states that:
No superannuation contributions shall be paid by a local authority in respect of any person under this section … and no amount shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund to any local authority for this purpose.
As I am a generous person, I have given the Economic Secretary a choice this time. He can accept either amendment, and I shall be delighted to hear which it is.

Mr. Maples: This is another matter that was raised in Committee and to which we said that we would return on Report. I am gratified by the interest of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) in the health of the Consolidated Fund. I wish that his interest were shared by some of his colleagues, and sometimes by some of mine.
The question of superannuation is difficult. We discussed it in Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee expressed the view that payments should not be superannuable. I said in Committee that I would do two things. First, I would let the House know what procedure was necessary to change the arrangement and whether it was necessary to amend the Superannuation Act 1972, or whether this could be achieved by amending the 1986 regulations. It can be done by changing the regulations.
I said also that I would look into the matter and take it further within the Government. This subject really concerns the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, telling him of the anxiety expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on this issue and suggesting that it is appropriate to look into the matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham will understand that it is more complex than it appears on the surface. Therefore, I am not in a position to give him the Government's considered view at present, but I shall do so when a decision has been reached.
The amendments would simply stop the contributions. The fees would remain superannuable, under the 1986 regulations: the employee—in this case the returning officer—would have to make his contribution, but one of the amendments would stop the local authority from making its contribution while the other would give it the right not to do so if it so wished. In neither case would the authority be reimbursed from the Consolidated Fund.
The pension rights of the returning officer would remain in place, but part of the funding would be removed. We do not consider that that is the right way to deal with the matter. If the House decided that it wanted to deal with it by ensuring that such payments would not be superannuable in the future, the right way to do so would be to amend the 1986 regulations.
10.45 pm
That would be a complex process, and would involve questions of fairness. Some people who have acted as returning officers for some time will have been paying money into their local authorities' pension funds for several years, and that arrangement could not suddenly change: transitional arrangements would be needed. We all take a great interest in our own pension arrangements, and I suspect that local authority chief executives and others who act as returning officers take an equal interest.
The views expressed in Committee by hon. Members on both sides of the House have been communicated to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government are considering the matter, and I will inform the hon. Member for Wrexham as soon as we form a view.

Dr. Marek: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I assure him that the Opposition did not intend to deprive anyone of benefits that have already been agreed to, and which people expect to gain when they retire. The Minister is quite right: it is not a simple matter to table an amendment in the way in which we have sought to do. I readily accept that ours are defective.
I shall wait with interest to see what happens. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Maples.]

Dr. Marek: The Bill has not taken too much of the House's time. In Committee, it took us a single sitting to go through a number of amendments, as a result of which certain things will happen that would not have happened


without our debate. This is, I think, an example of parliamentary deliberations improving a Bill. I hope that the Bill is now in a fit state to be added to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LIAISON

Ordered,
That Mr. Nicholas Winterton be added to the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Orders of the Day — Territorial Army

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Neil Thorne: Let me say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is replying to the debate—accompanied by his parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). Many hon. Members are interested in this subject, however—including, I believe, your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I number among those who are present my hon. Friends the Members for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Winchester (Mr. Browne), for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).
The gravity of the situation in the Gulf has again highlighted the need for the United Kingdom to retain an adequate military capability. The response to recent events has illustrated the Army's ability to meet the challenge of the unexpected in a magnificent manner while it continues to fulfil its roles in Northern Ireland, Belize, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and many other parts of the globe.
However, to meet this new demand our forces in north-west Europe and in the United Kingdom have been stripped both of men and of material. But for the lessening of tension in Europe, I doubt whether we should have been able to respond. Even so, we have had to recall individual reservists and have enlisted nearly 1,000 territorial soldiers in support of Operation Granby. This includes those who have had to volunteer for service on a regular engagement in order to ensure that they could take part.
There is a large element of the Territorial Army general hospital deployed to the Gulf—namely, 205 General Hospital from Glasgow, along with individuals from many regiments and corps. Of course, they would all have preferred to be deployed as part of their own units, but, because the TA has not been embodied, many have volunteered as individuals.
The House will also be interested to know that in addition to those TA soldiers who have enlisted their services in support of operations in the Gulf, many have been employed during their normal training periods in this country in various roles directly in support of those operations. A number of TA personnel have been instructing regular service men in a variety of special skills prior to their deployment.
The House will be aware that regular reservists are ex-regular soldiers who have a statutory liability to serve, while the territorials are all volunteers. Many members of the Territorial Army are clearly disappointed that they have not been called upon to contribute to the operation in view of what in recent years has been referred to as the "one Army" concept.
Here I should mention that those reservists who have responded and have been successful in going have been supported magnificently by their employers in every case. I think that we should acknowledge that, and I hope that the Department will in due course write individually to those employers expressing thanks.
The disappointment of territorial soldiers is increased by the knowledge that so many of the regular Army units serving in the Gulf have had to be brought up to strength from other units and individual reservists. Nevertheless, it is heartening to know that our volunteers who have in the past so often come to the defence of our country still feel that same sense of loyalty.
We have rightly hoped for a peace dividend with the advent of glasnost and it was with this in mind that the Secretary of State announced in the House on 25 July 1990 his intention to conduct studies into "Options for Change" for defence. In his statement, he said:
volunteer reserves will continue to play a key role, and we wish to consider the appropriate numbers for the future, having regard to our needs and realistic levels of recruitment and retention."—[Official Report, 25 July 1990; Vol. 177, c.472.]
His more recent statement on 22 January indicated that the studies on "Options for Change" would take account of the changes in eastern Europe and the Gulf operations. The House may not be aware that, despite those statements, an exercise continues within the Ministry of Defence aimed at drastic reductions in the TA. The feeling among many of those concerned is that the cuts proposed are such that they could in the long term mean the demise of the Territorial Army as we know it today.
That would seem unbelievable when comparing the relative costs of the territorial and regular forces. In the plans for the support of NATO, the TA provided one third of the Army at only 6 per cent. of its total cost. The cost of a volunteer is about one seventh of that of a regular soldier.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the need for a reduction in the services after the Gulf war, terrorism will not go away and, therefore, the need for the Territorial Army to be available at stations and airports will grow, and that it would be folly for this exercise within the Ministry to continue?

Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate for making that important point; it is one which we must consider seriously.
If we are to recruit, train and retain an adequate number of volunteer soldiers, they must feel that they belong to a worthwhile organisation. That will not be the case if we reduce their units to skeleton strength and split them up in war among previously unknown commanders. Nor shall we encourage a healthy community spirit if we organise them on a central rather than a territorial basis, with a lesser training commitment. That has already been demonstrated by the difficulty experienced in recruiting for the home service force, which had that lesser commitment. If we take that course, we shall lose many of our volunteers and find it difficult to attract the quality of recruits required.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I have recently returned from a drill night with a home service force unit, at which we were told that the number of man training days next year is to be reduced by a quarter.

Mr. Thorne: I hope that that is only a temporary measure, as the importance of proper training for the TA is vital.

Mr. John Greenway: The community feature of the Territorial Army is especially important the further away from London one is. There is a loyalty to the unit and the cap badge, and to the community. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that loyalty were lost, many would not bother to join the TA in the first place?

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks.
While military operations will remain the prime role of the Territorial Army, I see tremendous scope for employment in support of the civil community, especially in the event of national disasters such as the Lockerbie air and Clapham rail tragedies. The House will be aware that Territorial Army volunteers played a valuable part at Lockerbie and were some of the first on the scene of the accident.
The present spread of Territorial Army units across the country provides, at little cost, a framework in the community to maintain an awareness of our defence responsibilities. It provides a source for utilising the energies of young people who wish to serve their country, but would not necessarily wish to be part of the regular forces. Many of those who join to get a taste of military life later transfer to the regular forces.
The large network of TA units plays a valuable part in any community and, along with our cadet forces, instils a sense of discipline and civic responsibility in our young men and women.
I am concerned that the Ministry of Defence, faced with inadequate resources for its regular forces, will take decisions about the Territorial Army, as it did in 1967, that might be justified against the precise military needs of today, but which are contrary to the wider and longer- term interests of the nation and which once implemented would be almost impossible to reverse.
As we pull forces out of Germany, there will be great difficulties in providing accommodation and training areas for an adequate regular army, quite apart from the pressures on defence spending. That is all the more reason for retaining a strong TA. These citizen soldiers are high calibre, well-motivated people whose training standards can be quickly improved in time of tension—and we can expect more warning time now that the Warsaw pact has crumbled.
The success of the United States in mobilising many members of the National Guard and reserves, and the political backing that this has received, helps to prove that reserves can make a most valuable contribution in a variety of circumstances.
The nationwide spread of the TA is an important element in its continuing effectiveness. The benefits to those who train in the TA help to make up for the lack of national service in bringing the benefits of military training to many more of our young people than could ever join the regular forces. Indeed, the TA provides a valuable link between the military and the community as a whole and promotes an awareness of defence requirements.
However, if the figures said to be under consideration are true—a reduction from an establishment of 86,000 to a possible 51,000—the TA might not be sustainable. The reduction of an infantry battalion to cadre size, while retaining cap badges, for example, does not provide either the challenge or the esprit de corps that will attract the volunteer.

Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend's active support of the TA is well known. Does he agree that the TA offers flexibility of manning as well as of spending for the Army, both of which are extremely important? If we use the TA, we can spend more on the essential battlefield oxygen of logistics. We are learning how important that is in the Gulf, in a modern high-intensity battlefield. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation surrounding Queen's order No. 2 is too inflexible and that the Government are not able to use the TA to best advantage?

Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This is a matter which ought to be looked into. In my view, there will be an increasing role for the TA. Unless we explore all avenues, we shall not get the maximum benefit.
The argument that the recruited strength of the Territorial Army is only 71,000 and that, therefore, the reduction would not be serious is incorrect, in that a reduction to 51,000 would lead to a reduction in the actual strength of about 40,000. It is, of course, essential that the strength of senior officers and non-commissioned officers be maintained so that in times of emergency there is a firm base on which to build.
How does the proposed reduction in the Territorial Army, together with the reductions that have already taken place in the funding of training, square with the statement of the Secretary of State on 25 July that greater use is to be made of the reserves? Can the House be assured that the Government accept that an effective TA recruited widely across the country is of vital importance to the life of the nation, that no proposals for the reduction of the Territorial Army have been agreed by the Army Board and, moreover, that any decisions on its future size and shape will be delayed until after the conclusion of operations in the Gulf when the lessons of that conflict have been analysed?

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on obtaining this debate. The fuure of the TA is, I know, a matter of great interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
This country has a long history, spanning centuries, of part-time volunteer soldiering. When the present Territorial Army was formed in the early years of this century, many units had their origins in the infantry and yeomanry that had been raised in Napoleonic times. The Territorials have fought with distinction in two world wars, and the TA is making a significant contribution to the current operation in the Gulf—a contribution to which my hon. Friend alluded. All those members of the TA serving in the Gulf volunteered to do so, and I know that the House will wish to join me in thanking them for their selfless contribution to the effort to liberate Kuwait.
The Territorial Army has changed much since its inception as the territorial force in 1908. In the years following the second world war, it retained a peacetime organisation based on complete reserve divisions, but with the end of conscription in the 1960s it became clear that this organisation was no longer appropriate and the divisions were disbanded in 1967.
In the following years a major reorganisation was accomplished to form the basis of the TA that we know


today. Both teeth arms and support units became integrated into the command structure alongside the regular Army and asssumed key roles in major NATO and home defence commitments. Standards of training and equipment were raised, and the TA was moulded into a force with professional standards of which they and we can be justly proud.
It is worth recalling that the Territorial Army has a number of distinct elements. The great majority—over 75 per cent.—are members of independent units. These units are based in their own TA centres, usually in the cities or town, where they train, and they recruit locally. They are supported by their own permanent staff, who include regular personnel, in training and administration.
About 15 per cent. of the TA are members of specialist units. These units are trained and administered by a central volunteer headquarters of their own arm or service, which will be regular headquarters. These volunteers are recruited on a countrywide basis, and usually have a civilian occupation similar or identical to their military occupation.
The home service force to which my hon. Friend referred, is the most recent part of the TA. It was first raised as a pilot scheme in September 1982. That scheme involving four HSF companies and fewer than 400 volunteers, was so successful that it was expanded to 47 companies. These units are recruited locally from those with previous service experience, like my hon. Friend, and I am pleased to say that recruiting over the past year has gone very well, with more than 500 new members.
The Government have always been conscious of the important part that the volunteer reserves play in the defence of the country and we have therefore been committed to building on those improvements. We believe that high standards play a vital role in maintaining the essential public support for the TA.
I remind the House that some 10 years ago when the situation in eastern Europe was far different from what we see today, this Government took steps to increase the size of the volunteer reserves. The TA grew in strength by some 20 per cent. in the early 1980s and throughout that decade the Territorial Army stood ready, on mobilisation, to provide a quarter of the Army's mobilised strength. More than 70 per cent. of the TA has had a NATO role. Formed units of the TA have provided more than 50 per cent. of the Army's infantry and medical support, and more than 60 per cent. of logistic support in the reinforcement of NATO. The remaining TA, including the home service force, has important home defence roles, guarding installations, reconnaissance duties and providing communications. Over this period, the visible strength and effectiveness of the TA made an important contribution to the maintenance of deterrence and the preservation of peace and stability in Europe.
During the 1980s, the TA was re-equipped with much of the most modern fighting equipment used by the regular Army. Its role was also expanded with the creation of a TA helicopter squadron. Another change of significance during this period has been the growth in numbers of female volunteers for the TA, reflecting the much better career possibilities that are now available to women throughout the regular and reserve forces. We will continue to encourage that trend in the future.
I also remind the House that the Government initiated the national employers' liaison committee which, under the leadership of Mr. Tommy Macpherson, has had great success in encouraging major employers to support those members of their staff who wish to serve in the volunteer reserves.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No Conservative Member doubts the support that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government have given to the TA and my hon. Friend the Minister has given an adequate account of what has happened. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who spoke so eloquently, referred to the present. He said that he was extremely concerned about a movement afoot in the Ministry of Defence to indulge in an inquiry that would weaken the TA. That is why there are so many Conservative Members in the Chamber tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure us about that.

Mr. Hamilton: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) that I will refer to that point later. I am sorry if he thinks that I am trying to duck the issue; I am not.
This initiative has now reached the point where well over half the country's work force have employers who have pledged their support and the process has not ended. Emphasis is now being given to this work continuing at regional level where the smaller employers, perhaps, have an even greater appreciation of how they can gain from the military training that the volunteer reservist receives. Teamwork, self-discipline, self-reliance and clear communication are all of real value in the civilian workplace and provide living proof of the fact that there is a genuine partnership between the reserves and civilian employers. I also express my thanks and appreciation to employers who have shown full understanding of our need to call out their staff for the Gulf operations and this includes not only the volunteer reserves, but those ex-regulars whose engagements include a reserve liability.
Retention is, of course, a key issue in the maintenance of a reasonably experienced and skilled volunteer reserve force, particularly one that seeks to meet the challenges posed by the complex roles and tasks required of it by the modern British Army. At present some 75 per cent. of TA recruits leave within three years of joining, 30 per cent. within their first year. Clearly, this is not satisfactory. We are already seeing signs that the liaison committee's activities are helping in this area, but it is also vital that the TA itself is made as attractive as possible to the individual volunteer. Pay and bounty arrangements are obviously important, and we have introduced several initiatives aimed particularly at helping those who found that, perhaps temporarily, they have not been able to offer the full commitment to the reserves which the training schedules demand. We continue to explore what further improvements are possible and we are about to look, with the help of TA officers who are management consultants in their business lives, at how we can increase the efficiency of our training in the hope that we can both reduce the annual commitment and make the training more fulfilling and enjoyable.
The Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations—the TAVRAs—are the regional organisations which have very important functions in administering the volunteer reserves and in advising the


Ministry of Defence. Their committees are composed of individuals with long experience of the TA who willingly give up much of their time in the interests of the reserve forces. I assure the House that their contribution is valued and listened to closely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South mentioned the role of the TA in the current operation. Some 570 TA personnel have volunteered to be called out for service during the Gulf emergency. The vast majority are medical specialists, manning 205 general hospital in Saudi Arabia—a vital element in our casualty treatment arrangements in the Gulf. Some hon. Members will probably be surprised that. more TA members have not been called out—my hon. Friend mentioned this—and I know that there would have been many more volunteers ready to serve if asked, but the regular Army has been able to meet the vast majority of our manpower requirements for the operation and it is only right that we should look to them first before calling on the reserves.
In opening this debate, my hon. Friend looked to the future of the TA. As one who has served in the TA and has always taken an interest in its fortunes, he will recall that emphasis has been given in recent years to the "one Army" concept, which seeks to underline the fact that the regulars and the TA are not separate armies, but come together and are integrated into one structure at a time of mobilisation. He will also recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was able to make a statement to the House last summer—again, he mentioned this—which announced that, in the light of the very fundamental changes which had been taking place in eastern Europe, he was setting in train studies on "Options for Change' for defence. It follows from the "one Army" approach that any examination of the size, role and structure of the regular Army must also look at the contribution to be made by the Territorial Army. However, as we have made clear, the conflict in the Gulf has implications for the options work and it would be quite inappropriate to take final decisions on the size and shape of the Army's front-line forces or the reserves until the lessons of the conflict are clearer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] My hon. Friends would not expect me to rule out change in the TA, but I give an assurance that, despite rumours to the contrary, no final decisions have been taken.
However, we are clear that the TA will continue to play a crucial part in meeting our defence needs and that it will retain a prominent role within the Army. We are also confident that the TA will be able to keep abreast of the challenges of developing battlefield technology and to apply its accustomed dedication and enthusiasm in its training. As ever, the size of the volunteer pool will be an important factor in the future of the organisation.
In determining the future roles, account must be taken of the limitations of part-time service offered by the volunteer, but, at the same time, the role must be challenging to the individual. The volunteer's motivation and sense of purpose must be sustained. We are well aware that there are other pressures on the spare time of a volunteer. He must take into account the impact of his civilian employment and the needs of his family. We must understand that the volunteer may wish to pursue other interests in his spare time. We must not, therefore, seek over-commitment to the TA and we must use some ingenuity in balancing the time that we can reasonably expect of a volunteer, seek to use that time usefully, efficiently and imaginatively, and produce the required level of preparedness.
The TA of the future must reflect its name and be truly territorial. There are already many TA centres—over 500 in all—whch give a sizeable presence in every county. We must take account of the existing spread of assets in deciding our future deployment. We must also look at population trends and listen carefully to the advice of the TAVRAs in determining the most propitious recruiting areas.
We believe it to be important that there must be more effective co-operation between the regular Army and the TA. We will be looking to the possibility of developing closer links between regular and TA units which would help the status of the TA.
The support of the nation is fundamental to the maintenance of a viable and well-recruited TA. I have already mentioned the invaluable part played by the national employer liaison committee, which we have decided will run on after the initial five-year period that we agreed in 1988. But it is not only the support of employers that is required. The volunteer ethos must be encouraged and nourished and we must also continue to gain and retain the support of families and peer groups.
I hope that what I have said will show the House that the Government have a high regard for the Territorial Army. I know that some hon. Members who have served in the TA or who have taken particular interest in their local units may on occasion wish us to do more.
While it is too early to say what the future holds, I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to listen carefully to the many friends of the TA who express their views—as we have heard this evening—with force and clarity. Indeed, I assure the House that we attach the greatest value to the role of the TA as an efficient force, a truly territorial force, and one that plays and will continue to play an essential element in our national defence.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.